IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2 0 of 2006. Between: G. Srinivas Goud … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad . … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C. Prathap Reddy (9103) Counsel for the Respondents : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2 0 OF 2006 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak at Sanga Reddy in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2003, dated 30-11- 2005, confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sangareddy passed in CC.No. 89 of 2000, dated 19-12-2002, convicting the petitioner- accused to suffer two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rs.Three thousand only) in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for four months for the offence under section 304-A of I.P.C. and further convicted the petitioner-accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 337 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : On 11-04-1999 at around 07:20 a.m., while the defacto complainant by name Narenderpal Sing, the owner of the Shere Punjabi Dhaba was in the hotel, the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP23B-6474l while coming from Zaheerabad and proceeding towards Hyderabad, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry infront of the hotel of the complainant resulting all the occupants of the jeep sustaining severe injuries while two of them died on the spot. Further he came to know that the name of the driver of the jeep is one Srinivas Goud of Peddapur village. One of the injured, who had been shifted to Hospital also succumbed to the injuries. On a complaint lodged by him, the police registered a case in Cr.No.31/99 under sections 337 and 304-A IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Sangareddy took up investigation and recorded the statement of defacto complainant and sent the injured persons to the Government Hospital, Sangareddy for treatment. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence. The Inspector of Police took up investigation and he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panchas and drafted rough sketch of the scene and also got photographed the scene of offence and went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead bodies of Afzal Khan, Sudhakar Reddy, Bakka Narsimhulu and Boppa Ravi in the presence of panchas and recorded the statements of the injured persons and sent the dead bodies to the hospital for postmortem examination and also sent the crime vehicle to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection. The accused also received injuries and he was also sent to the Hospital for treatment. Thereafter on 25-09-1999 the accused was arrested theand released on bail. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused under sections 304-A and 337 IPC. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to 20. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was let-in. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused admitted that he was the driver of the crime jeep bearing No.AP-22-B-6474 and further denied that he is not responsible for causing the accident. The accused did not examine any defence witnesses on his behalf. 6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offences under section 304-A and 337 IPC and convicted the accused under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. 7. On appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. The point for determination is whether the judgment of both the courts below are true, correct and proper ? 9. The powers of the High Court exercising jurisdiction under section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are truncated. Unless the finding is shown to be perverse or incorrect or illegal or not based on any evidence on record, then only the judgment under challenge needs interference. 10. The accused being the driver of offending jeep bearing No.AP- 23B - 6474 dashed against the lorry whereby four persons died on the spot and two persons died in the Hospital and four persons sustained injuries. The trial court after evolving the evidence of the injured witnesses and the owner of the Dhaba and worker of Dhaba wherein the accident took place decided the issue against the accused holding that the death of the persons concerned must be due to the rash and negligent act of the revision petitioner-accused herein. 11. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner-accused submitted that the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, more particularly the eye- witnesses and the injured witnesses has not inspired confidence and further there are a lot of discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses and they are contrary and contradict with another witness. 12. This Court perused the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. PW-1 claims to be eye- witness of the scene of occurrence. He admitted in the cross-examination that he has not witnessed the scene of occurrence but he has witnessed the same after hearing the noise due to the accident. Hence, this court decides that PW-1 is not an eye-witness to the scene of occurrence. PW-2 also claims to be the witness, who deposed in the court that the said jeep has come in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry whereby the occurrence took place. But he has not narrated why he states the vehicle has come in rash and negligent manner. But PW-2 admitted in his cross- examination that he has not stated before the Investigation Officer that he can identify the driver of the offending jeep and he also admitted that he has not stated the number of the jeep, which involved in the crime. Hence, the evidence of PW-2 regarding the rash and negligence of the said vehicle is not acceptable. As far as the other injured witnesses are concerned, some of them turned hostile and other witnesses also deposed before the Court that they cannot identify the driver admittedly who travelled in the said jeep. In view of the stand taken by the injured witnesses, the revision petitioner-accused herein cannot be connected with the crime as alleged by the prosecution. 13. Further it is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the prosecution has not established the fact that the revision petitioner herein is the driver of the offending vehicle drove the said vehicle on the date and time of occurrence and the prosecution has miserably failed to examine the owner of the offending jeep. Further the entire perusal of the evidence except the evidence of PW-2 who was also stated that the vehicle was coming in high speed and due to that rashness the accident took place. The said witness also not stated that whether the said accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the revision petitioner-accused. This Court is of the view that merely an accident by which some persons sustained injuries and died cannot be covered under section 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. There should be positive evidence to establish that the said accident took place only because of rash and/or negligent act of the revision petitioner- accused. In the absence of any positive evidence to prove that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent act, the revision petitioner-accused cannot be convicted under section 304-A and 337 of IPC. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, which was confirmed by the first appellate court is liable tobe set aside and accordingly the conviction and sentence is set aside. 15. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed and the fine amount if paid be directed to be refunded to the revision petitioner-accused. . __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 23-04-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2 0 OF 2006 Circulation Entry No. 1 5 Date: 23-04-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L