HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.47 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused against the judgment, dated 14.11.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2005 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, by judgment dated 24.3.2005 in C.C.No.150 of 2001, was confirmed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6.3.2001 the deceased- Senapathi Krishna and his wife were going on a bicycle towards Dwarapudi from Anaparthi. By the time they reached Veerraju Mamidi at about 9.00 p.m., a lorry bearing No.AP5-U 5429 driven by the accused-driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction without blowing horn and dashed the bicycle of the deceased, resultantly, he died on the spot and his wife sustained severe bleeding injuries. P.S. Anaparthi registered a case in Crime No.22/2001 under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC against the driver of the lorry. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. However, on behalf of accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked. 4. After considering the entire material both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, R.I for two months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 338 IPC and ordered both the sentences to run concurrently by judgment dated 24.3.2005 in C.C.No.150 of 2001. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2005 before the court of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. The learned Sessions Judge, after perusal of the entire material, dismissed the said appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate through judgment dated 14.11.2006. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is the case of an accident resulting in the death of a person. A case in Crime No.22/2001 was registered by the P.S.Anaparthy under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC against the driver of the accident vehicle. The accident occurred on 6.3.2001 at about 9.00 p.m. The trial court found the accused guilty of the offences under both the Sections i.e.304-A and 338 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced as already stated hereinabove, and subsequently the first appellate court i.e. VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, had confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the accused. 7. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner-accused that the defacto complainant, who is wife of the deceased was an eye witness, however, she did not identify the driver of the vehicle as she fell unconscious after the accident. She was a pillion rider on the bicycle of her deceased husband at the time of the accident. Moreover, there was no proper lighting at the place of the accident, therefore, it is contended that the trial court was not justified in observing that since the vehicular lights are coming from opposite side, it is sufficient to identify the driver of the vehicle. It is further contended that PWs 2 and 4 who are also following the deceased from behind on their bicycle could not speak of the speed of the accident vehicle at the time of the accident. Therefore, both the courts committed error in disbelieving the factual position vis-à-vis the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 and erroneously convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of PWs 2 and 4, who are eye witnesses to the accident clinchingly proves the case of the prosecution. PWs 2 and 4 were following the deceased on another bicycle and it is in their evidence that the accused was driver of the lorry at the time of the accident. In any case, the accident took place on the main road which is stated to be busy with vehicular traffic and as such there would be plenty of light on the road as vehicles with head lights pass on. Moreover, he submits that it is an accident case resulting in the death of a person and the driver charged with inter alia of the offence under Section 304-A where the documentary evidence would reveal that the accused is the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. He also pointed out from the evidence of PW.6-Motor Vehicle Inspector that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. Therefore, he submits that both the courts below, after appreciating the material on record, have come to the right conclusion in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner-accused and the same is not liable to be interfered with. 9. It is seen that there was no proper lighting on the road at the time of the accident; that the wife of the deceased was pillion rider and that she is stated to be unconscious after the accident. The evidence of PWs 2 and 4, who are eye witnesses and following the bicycle of the deceased at the time of the accident, is that the accused was driver of the accident vehicle. But, there is no clinching evidence on record to prove that the accused is the driver of the accident vehicle. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the conviction imposed on the accused by the trial court and as confirmed by the appellate court is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court and as confirmed by the appellate court for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the accused. 10. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court and as confirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 02.02.2011 Stp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.47 of 2007 -12-2010