HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1717 OF 2005 ORDER: The sole accused was convicted by the learned IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A IPC and u/Secs.134 (a) & (b) r/w.Sec.187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The sole accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with appropriate default sentence for the offence u/Sec.304-A IPC. The sole accused was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.250/- each for the offence punishable u/Secs.134(a) & (b) r/w. 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and appropriate default sentenced were ordered. Considering that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence, the accused preferred an appeal. The learned Principal Session Judge, Chittoor dismissed the appeal on the whole. Hence the criminal revision. 2. Sri P.Govinda Reddy, learned Counsel for the accused inter alia contended that the identity of the accused was not made out and that the accused consequently, is entitled to the benefit of doubt. He also submitted that the non-examination of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and the Medical Officer are fatal to the prosecution case, so much so, the prosecution failed to establish that the offending lorry was involved in the accident and that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. 3. Smt. Y.Ratna Prabha, leaned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submitted that the evidence of P.Ws 1,3,4 and 6 proves that the accused was the driver of the offending lorry beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused cannot question Exs.P5 and P6, postmortem report and the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report respectively when no objection was raised at the time of marking of the said documents. She further submitted that the offence alleged against the accused is made out beyond reasonable doubt and that the Judgment of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court does not suffer from any error of law apparent and that the revision deserves to be dismissed. 4. It is the prosecution case that on 30.11.2000 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused being the driver of the lorry being registration No. AP-03U 1031 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased- Annaiah while the deceased was walking on the pedestrian. The deceased sustained multiple injuries in the said accident. He died at about 5.30 p.m. while he was undergoing treatment at the Government Headquarter Hospital, Chittoor. It is stated that soon after the accident, the accused and the cleaner of the lorry (P.W.7) fled away from the scene of offence, statedly, as they were afraid of attack from the mob. Considering that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A IPC as well as u/Sec.187 of Motor Vehicles Act for violation of Secs.134(a) & 134 (b), prosecution was launched against the accused. 5. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the non-examination of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and the Medical Officer are fatal to the prosecution case. Ex.P5 is the postmortem examination report issued by the Medical Officer. For one reason or the other, the prosecution did not examine the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Be that as it may, there was no objection by the accused at the time of marking of Ex.P5. Similarly, Ex.P6-report of Motor Vehicles Inspector was marked without any objection from the accused albeit, the Motor Vehicles Inspector was not examined. It is true that the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report and the postmortem report deserve to be proved by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and the Medical officer, who inspected the vehicle and who conducted postmortem examination respectively. However, where there was no objection for the accused in marking Exs.P5 and P6 at the time of their marking, the accused cannot later turn around and claim that Exs.P5 and P6 were not proved and that the non-examination of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and the Medical officer are fatal to the prosecution case. 6. The importance of the medical evidence is that the doctor, who conducted autopsy was to state about the cause of death of the deceased. Unless it is established that the accident and the resultant injuries caused the death of the deceased, the accused would not be liable for punishment u/Sec.304-A IPC. Consequently, there is any amount of importance for Ex.P5- postmortem report. However, where Ex.P5 had been proved on account of consent, I agree with the contention of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the prosecution established that the death of the deceased was on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 7. The report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector under Ex.P6 is also important to establish the identity of the accused and that the offending lorry did not sustain any mechanical defect. Regarding the identity of the accused, Ex.P6 plays a crucial role where there was no test identification parade conducted by the investigating agency. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1,3,4 and 6, they identified the accused as the driver of the offending lorry at the time of the accident. All of them, were strangers to the accused, where their evidence can be accepted to establish that the accused was the driver of the offending lorry. 8. It is the case of the prosecution that soon after the accident, the accused and P.W.7, who was the cleaner of the lorry, fled away from the scene of offence stating that they were afraid that the accused would be attacked and also would be manhandled by the mob. 9. The learned counsel for the accused contended that when the accused ran away from the scene of offence soon after the accident, the identity of the accused as mentioned by P.Ws.1,3,4 and 6 cannot be accepted. 10. It is not the case of the prosecution case that identity of the accused was made out from the evidence of P.Ws.1,3,4 and 6 only. There are other circumstances which lead the identity of the accused. One of the circumstances had already been pointed out viz., that Ex.P6 M.V.Inspector’s report refers to the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. 11. The other circumstance of the case is that on 4.12.2000, that is about four days after the accident, the accused voluntarily surrendered before P.W.11, Investigating Officer. In other words, the accused himself admitted that he was the driver of the offending lorry at the time of the accident. I am afraid that the accused therefore, cannot now turn back and claim that he was not the driver of the lorry at the time of the alleged accident. Thus, the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending lorry has indeed been made out. 12. That the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry is not in dispute and that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident is made out by Ex.P5. That the accused was the driver of the offending lorry at the time of the accident is evident from Ex.P6 as well as from the surrender of the accused before P.W.11. The prosecution therefore, made out the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 13. The trial court and the appellate court were perfectly justified in convicting the accused for violation of the offences punishable u/Secs.134(a) & (b) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the revision is dismissed to the extent of conviction recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. 14. Regarding the quantum of sentence imposed against the accused, the trial court imposed fine of Rs.250/- against the accused for each of the offence punishable u/Secs.134 (a) & 134(b) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The trial court also recorded fine of Rs.1000/- against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.304-A IPC. The fine imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court deserves to be maintained. 15. Regarding the quantum of imprisonment imposed against the accused, it may be noticed that the offence occurred on 30.11.2000 i.e., about 11 years back. At the time of the appeal, the accused was described to be 51 years old. Now the accused must be over 60 years old. Added to it, the accused is a professional driver. There is no evidence that the accused was involved in a similar offence at any point of time after the accident. Hence, it can be noted that the accused had not involved in any other case subsequent to this incident. 16. Taking the age and the petitioner/accused not being involved in any of the offences after the alleged incident into consideration, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused to the period already undergone by him. It is not clear as to how many days the accused was in jail. Whatever the period of actual incarceration be, I deem it appropriate that the said period deserves to be treated as sufficient. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment as recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused. 17. Subject to the above observations, the criminal revision case is disposed of. _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Mjl/* Dt. 21.10.2011