THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2336 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- Accused against judgment, dated 29.11.2010, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2009 on the file of I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, confirming conviction imposed in C.C.No.166 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, Nellore District. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: On 06.11.2000, while the defacto-complainant namely V.Venkata Subbaiah (PW.1) was driving the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 4731 from Gudur towards Kondapuram and reached near Writer Satram, another A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 5322 (hereinafter referred to as crime bus) driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, while overtaking a lorry, dashed against the bus of PW.1 which was coming in opposite direction, as a result of which one lady passenger travelling in the crime bus died and some of the passengers of both the buses sustained grievous and simple injuries. Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint given by PW.1, a case was registered and investigated into. 3. The Petitioner/Accused was prosecuted in C.C.No.166 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. After due trial, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, Nellore District, convicted the accused under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, vide judgment, dated 28.04.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2009, whereby the learned I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, on consideration of the material available on record, while confirming the conviction recorded by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC, reduced the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC to six months, and in other respects, the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. 4. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed before the trial Court. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that except PW.1, no other witnesses deposed that the petitioner/accused has driven the crime bus rashly and negligently at the time of accident and, as such, the evidence of PW.1 alone cannot form basis for convicting the petitioner/accused and both the Courts below erroneously convicted the accused. 6. The point that arises for consideration is “Whether the evidence of PW.1 alone can be relied on to convict the petitioner/accused?” 7. POINT: Admittedly, the accused is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 5322, whereas PW.1 is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 4731. It is not in dispute that there was collision between the bus driven by PW.1 and the bus driven by the accused on 06.11.2000. In the instant case, except PWs.1 and 3, all the eyewitnesses i.e., P.Ws.2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 stated that they cannot say due to whose negligence the accident took place and they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 have to be scrutinized carefully. PW.1, in his evidence, categorically deposed that the crime bus driven by the accused, while trying to overtake a lorry, came to the right side of the road and dashed against his bus and, as such, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Except the evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence to convict the accused. According to PW.3, at the place of impact, on seeing the bus of the accused, PW.1 left the steering due to fear and came out of his seat, due to which the accident took place. PW.3 further deposed that due to negligence of PW.1, the accident took place. The evidence of PWs.1 and 3 are quite contrary to each other. When two different versions are available in connection with the same occurrence, the evidence that is more probable should be taken into account. Here, PW.3 is an independent witness, whereas PW.1 is the driver of the bus against which the bus of the accused hit and he gave the complaint in the present case. So, there is every possibility of PW.1 speaking against the accused, as such, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be relied upon. Hence, in view of the evidence of PW.3 and in the absence of the evidence of PW.1, it is highly unsafe to convict the accused and the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused are liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and as modified by the appellate Court are hereby set aside and the petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. _____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 25.08.2011 v v