HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1327 OF 2006 Dated 20-01-2014 Between:
Bodapally Venkateswarlu.
And:
..Petitioner.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1327 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 10-7-2006 in Crl.A.No.64 of 2004 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, Suryapet, wherein judgment dated 12-4-
2005 in C.C.No.603 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet, is confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Chivvemula Police Station filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging that on 13-7-2001 at 7 P.M., on the direction of Inspector of Police, Suryapet, P.C.No.946 of Chivvemula Police Station along with other police personnel 35 in number drawn from Hyderabad for Bandobast duty boarded crime vehicle at Suryapet to report before Inspector of Police, Kondada and when they reached outskirts of Gumpula village on National High Way No.9 around 7.45 P.M., the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a stationed lorry bearing No.A.P.11 U 9109 on its back due to which, crime vehicle turned turtle and fell into a ditch resulting injuries to H.C.No.901, who latter died in Area Hospital, Suryapet and the other inmates received simple and grievous injuries. On these allegations, forty one witnesses are examined and forty two documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and on defence side, five documents are marked which are contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.24, 28, 29, 31 and 35. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and convicted him for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C., but no separate sentence is imposed for these two offences. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred appeal to the court of Session and the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, Suryapet dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the judgments of trial court and appellate court, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that courts below erred in accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses that they have not identified the accused during investigation and they only identified him in the court. He further submitted that all the witnesses are police constables who are highly interested in prosecuting agency and relying on such evidence, to convict accused is not proper. He further submitted that there are material contradictions which are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.5, but the trial court has not taken those contradictions into consideration while appreciating the evidence. He further submitted that for these reasons, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is clinching evidence against the accused and both the courts rightly convicted him. He further submitted that there was one death and thirty persons were injured in the accident and that all the injured in one voice deposed about the rash and negligent act of the accused whose evidence is supported by eye witness who is examined as P.W.32. He further submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
7. POINT:
According to prosecution, on the date of incident, P.W.1 along with some police personnel were proceeding in a D.C.M. Van bearing No.AP-16-W-5665 driven by the accused and when their vehicle reached the outskirts of Gumpula village, driver of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed a stationed lorry on its back which resulted in death of one person and injuries to most of the inmates. Out of forty one witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the complainant, P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased Head Constable, P.Ws.3 to 31 and 40 are injured persons, P.Ws.32 and 35 are eye witnesses to the incident, P.W.33 is Motor Vehicle Inspector, P.W.34 is Medical Officer who gave treatment to the injured and issued Wound Certificate, P.W.36 is Mediator for the inquest and P.W.37 is the Medical Officer who conducted Post Mortem, P.Ws.38 and 39 are the mediators for observation of scene of offence and P.W.41 is the Investigating Officer.
8. The main objection of the revision petitioner- accused is that he was not identified by the witnesses during investigation and identification was done only during trial in the court. But here the injured witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1, 3 to 6, 8 to 11, 13 to 15, 17 to 22, 24, 29 and 30 besides eye witnesses P.Ws.32 and 35 clearly identified the revision petitioner as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Though these witnesses are cross- examined on behalf of accused, nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony with regard to identity. All these witnesses cannot have any motive or enmity to speak against the driver and it is not the case of accused that he was not the driver of D.C.M.Van in which these persons were carried. Simply because these witnesses have not stated in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements about the name or features of the accused, their evidence with regard to identity of the accused in the court cannot be brushed aside. All the witnesses in one voice deposed as to the manner in which accident occurred and also as to the negligent act of accused driver. In fact, this objection was raised before the trial court and the learned trial judge minutely examined this objection with reference to the evidence on record and rightly discarded the objection.
9. On a scrutiny of the material on record, I do not find any wrong findings in the judgment of the trial court or in the appellate court with regard to the objection of identity raised on behalf of the accused/revision petitioner.
10. The other contention of revision petitioner is that there is no evidence for the rash and negligent act of the accused. According to revision petitioner, the contradictions elicited during the cross examination of P.Ws.24, 28, 29, 31 and 35 are very much relevant and those contradictions are not considered and that there is no evidence for the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. But the contention of the revision petitioner cannot be sustained for the reason the other injured eye witnesses and the complainant i.e., P.W.1 have categorically deposed about the rash and negligent driving of the accused near Gumpula village and also about the manner in which the driver caused the accident by hitting a stationed lorry.
11. From their evidence, it is clear that the crime vehicle tilted after hitting stationed lorry which indicates the way in which the accused drove the vehicle. From the evidence, it is clear that after hitting the lorry, the crime vehicle went towards right side of the road and fell into ditch. When all the injured categorically deposed about the rash and negligent act of the accused, some contradictions in the evidence of three or four witnesses would no way shake the testimony of other material witnesses and this aspect was rightly considered by the trial court and overruled the objection of defence with regard to rash and negligent act.
12. On a scrutiny of the evidence on record, I am of the view that both the courts rightly appreciated evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court and appellate court for convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 I.P.C. Though the accused were found guilty for the three offences, the trial court was very sympathetic towards accused without giving separate punishment for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. which is for causing injuries to nearly thirty persons. He was left with one sentence for all the offences.
13. For these reasons, it is held that revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. The trial court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
15. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 20-01-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1327 OF 2006 Dated 20-01-2014