IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY THE NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1325 OF 2007 Between:
Boya Laxmanna … Revision Petitioner/Appellant Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP … Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Revision Petitioner : Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1325 OF 2007 O R D E R :
This Revision is against judgment dated 21/09/2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar district, whereunder judgment dated 18/07/2005 in CC.No. 510 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Maldakal Police Station filed charge sheet against Revision Petitioner alleging that on 31/10/2000 at about 07:00 a.m., defacto complainant, his mother and others boarded an Auto bearing No. AP-22-T-9661 with castor seeds to go to Gadwal and when the said auto reached Tatikunta village limits near KM stone No.6/21 at about 08:10 a.m., an RTC bus came in opposite direction and in order to give way to the bus, auto driver got down from the road in a high speed and lost control of the auto and due to which the inmates received injuries and one person died on the spot. On the report of defacto complainant, FIR was registered and investigation revealed that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Revision Petitioner and that he is liable for offences under section 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC.
3. On these allegations, trial court examined PWs 1 to 9 and Exs.P-1 to P-9 are marked on behalf of prosecution. No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.
4. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for offences under section 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced him to suffer six months Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- [Rs. Two thousand only] for offence under section 304-A of IPC and no separate punishment is given for offences under section 337 and 338 of IPC.
5. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions and the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar at Gadwal on re-appraisal of evidence, confirmed conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present Criminal Revision is preferred.
6. When this matter was listed on 06/8/2014 no one appeared on behalf of Revision Petitioner and it is adjourned by two weeks. Again it is listed on 21/08/2014, as no one appeared on that day it is posted to this day under the caption “for orders”, in spite of that no one appeared on behalf of Revision Petitioner.
7. According to grounds urged in the revision, as PW-1 received compensation under ‘aapat-bandu’ scheme the conviction against Revision Petitioner cannot be sustained. The other contention raised in the grounds of revision is that RTC bus came in a negligent manner in opposite direction and to avoid it auto driver came out of the road and thereby lost control and that there is no negligence on the part of Revision Petitioner and both trial court and appellate court lost sight of it and convicted Revision Petitioner and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.
8. Leared Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of all prosecution witnesses would clinchingly show that accident was due to negligence of auto driver and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of courts below.
9. Now the point that arises for consideration in this Criminal Revision is “whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper ?”
10. P O I N T : According to prosecution, on the date of accident, the deceased PWs 2, 4 and others boarded auto of Revision Petitioner in order to go to Gadwal and when the auto reached the accident spot, revision petitioner drove auto in a rash and negligent manner and that resulted in accident, due to which one person died and others received injuries. Out of nine witnesses examined, PWs 2 and 4 are direct eye-witnesses and injured. They clearly deposed the way in which accident took place and their evidence is fully supported and corroborated with prosecution version. Though these two witnesses are cross-examined on behalf of revision petitioner nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their testimony. Though all the prosecution witnesses are cross-examined, nothing could be elicited from them to support defence version. Both trial court and appellate court have elaborately discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court. I also do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below. The ‘scope’ and ‘jurisdiction’ of Revisional Court is very limited and only when there is illegality committed by the subordinate courts, revisional court has to interfere.
11. As seen from the material, I do not find any illegality committed either by trial court or appellate court. On the other hand, courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and gave findings basing on evidence. As rightly pointed by learned Public Prosecutor, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
13. For the above reasons, I am of the view that this Criminal Revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed, confirming conviction and sentence. Trial court shall take steps to apprehend Revision Petitioner/accused to undergo un-expired portion of sentence.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
09/09/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1325 OF 2007 Circulation No. 17 Date: 09/09/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43