THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1557 OF 2004 ORDER: This criminal revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner – Accused Jada Durga Rao against the judgment of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Srikakulam, in Crl.A.No.144 of 2001 dated 07.09.2004, under which the conviction and judgment passed against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.64 of 2001 dated 07.09.2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam, was confirmed. The offence is under Section 304-A and 337 IPC and the accused is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer SI for two months. 2. Heard. 3. According to the prosecution case on 24.12.1999, the accused drove the lorry bearing No.AP 37 T 4885 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against P.W.2, who was going on a bicycle and further dashed against the deceased, who was coming on a scooter, on account of that the deceased died on the spot. P.W 2 sustained injuries along with P.W.1. On the complaint given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.173/99 under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC was registered and investigated. After filing of charge sheet, the accused when examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the basis of the material on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 304-A IPC and 337 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer SI for two months. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.144 of 2001, which was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Hence, this revision. 4. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused was not at all the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and that there is absolutely no material to show that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor says that the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals the same apart from other material on record and that it is a case where at a speed breaker, the accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner that dashed P.W.1 first, there after the deceased, who died on the spot, and P.W.1 received injuries. 5. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether there are any grounds to allow the revision? 6. As far as the question of identity of the accused is concerned, it is true that the driver of the lorry stopped the lorry near the scene of accident and ran away, there after, the accused was produced by P.W.3, the brother of the owner of the vehicle before the police saying that he is the driver of the vehicle. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are no eyewitnesses to identify the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle. After so many days of accident, there might not be possibility for the witnesses to identify the driver, but the circumstance of the owner’s brother P.W.3 producing the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle would show that he was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. In case, someone has driven the vehicle, there was no necessity for P.W.3 to produce the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle leaving the real driver. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that to save the real driver, the petitioner was produced as the driver of the vehicle. This contention may not be true as in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused has stated that at the instance of brother of P.W.3, the owner, he has accepted that he is the driver of the vehicle. In case, he is not the driver of the vehicle, it is not known what forced him to accept. Not only that at somewhere else as revealed from the record he stated that he has been driving the vehicle for five years and it is the first accident. Thus, there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle. 7. Coming to the negligence as revealed from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the offending lorry first hit the cyclist P.W.1 causing injuries to P.W.2 along with P.W.1 and then hit the scooter, which is ample material to show gross negligence of the driver of the lorry at the time of accident, that is of the accused. 8. Considering the above circumstances, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Courts below and the revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 24th June 2010, Rns