IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1900 OF 2003 Between: Bapatla Venkateshwarlu ..... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused AND The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. through Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 16.12.2003, in Crl.A.No.51 of 2003, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby the conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), and sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month, as imposed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for PCR Cases, Warangal, vide judgment, dated 11.03.2003, in C.C.No.536 of 2001, were confirmed. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: On 05.12.1999 morning, the deceased-Bhemmandi Chandramma went to the house of P.W.1-Dussa Laxmi, situated at Fort Warangal, and she was returning to the house of her son Venkataiah, situated at Perukawada, Warangal at about 10.00 a.m. and when she reached Sakarasikunta on Khammam-Warangal Road, the accused came behind her by driving the lorry bearing No.AP 27T 1557 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed behind the deceased. As a result, the deceased died. Basing on the report given by P.W.1 on 05.12.1999 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.7-Sub-Inspector of Police, Matwada Traffic, registered a case. P.W.7 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of photographer and three panchas got photographed the scene of offence and drafted the scene of observation report in the presence of panch witnesses, drawn rough sketch of scene of offence and shifted the lorry bearing No.AP 27T 1557 from the scene of offence to Matwada Police Station for safe custody for the inspection of Motor Vehicles Inspector, Warangal. Then P.W.7 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchas and after inquest, the dead body was sent to M.G.M. Hospital for Post-Mortem examination. P.W.4, the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued Post-Mortem examination report and opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries sustained by her in the accident. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Warangal, inspected the lorry and issued a report with an opinion that there was no mechanical defects in the vehicle for causing the accident and after completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C., he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record by placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.5 who said to be the eye witness found the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted him of the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. On appeal, it was confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of the two Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that except the interested testimony of P.W.5, there is no other evidence to show that the accused drove the vehicle rashly or negligently; that the other eye witness, P.W.2, did not support the case of the prosecution, and therefore, it is not safe to place any implicit reliance on the solitary evidence of P.W.5, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgments. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 27T 1557 was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently resulting in the accident; that there is no legal bar to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.5; and that there is no reason for the same, and none of the finding is incorrect or illegal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be incorrect, illegal, or improper, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court or to reappreciate the evidence sitting as if in an Appeal. 11. There cannot be any dispute that the prosecution has to establish that there was rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 27T 1557 in causing the accident. Rashness does not consist of only high speed but consists of not taking proper care and caution in driving the vehicle and not following the rules of road safety. On the other hand, negligence is a gross culpable neglect or failure to exercise such care and caution that may be required to be taken in the circumstance of the case. 12. The entire case rests upon the evidence of P.W.5. P.W.5 was at a distance of 50 yards at the time of the accident. At that time, the deceased was coming by walk on the left side of the road. The lorry bearing No.AP 27T 1557, being driven by the accused, came behind the deceased and dashed to her. As a result, the deceased succumbed to injuries and died. As seen from the evidence of P.W.5, the deceased was walking on the left side of the road by observing the rules of the road. In such circumstances, it can be said that there was rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. As the deceased was walking on the left side of the road, there is no reason for the driver of the vehicle to dash against that person. Even if the deceased was negligent, the driver should have warned her by blowing horn. That precaution has not been taken by the accused. There is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.5. Simply because P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution, it does not mean that the evidence of P.W.5 must be disbelieved. The law is well settled that the evidence of solitary witness is unimpeachable, true, trustworthy and reliable, then there is no legal bar for basing a conviction. P.W.5 is totally an independent witness. His presence at the time of the accident is established beyond all reasonable doubt and he is categorically deposing as to under what circumstances the accident had taken place. 13. Considering the evidence on record, both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court found that the accused drove the lorry in rash or negligent manner. That finding cannot be shown to be incorrect. The judgment under challenge needs no interference. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 16.12.2003, in Crl.A.No.51 of 2003, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 13th November, 2009 KL