IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1647 OF 2007 Between:
Ekke Yadagiri @ Yadaiah … 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 Petitioner : Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1647 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Revision is against judgment dated 27/11/2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2006 on the file of I-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, whereunder judgment dated 19/05/2006 in CC.No. 173 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Kusumanchi Police Station filed charge sheet against Revision Petitioner alleging that on 15/02/2003 at about 10:00 hours deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were erecting pendal infront of their buddy shop, while PWs 2 and 3 came to the shop for purchase of beedies and cool drinks and in the meantime a lorry bearing No.AP-28U-9855 with iron scrap load came in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding towards Suryapet dashed the pendal, as a result one person died on the spot and second person died while being shifted to hospital and PWs 2 and 3 who are at the shop sustained injuries and that the same is witnessed by PW-5 and one Pullaiah. On the complaint from PW-1, Police registered Crime No. 15 of 2003 and investigation revealed that Revision Petitioner is liable for punishment for offences under section 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC.
3. On these allegations, trial court examined PWs 1 to 16 and Exs.P-1 to P-23 are marked on behalf of prosecution. No witness is 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 IPC and sentenced him to suffer one year Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- [Rs. Five Thousand only] and also found him guilty for the offence under section 337 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- [Rs. Five hundred only] and also found him guilty for offence under section 338 of IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- [Rs. One Thousand only]. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session, and the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam on re-appraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Advocate for Revision Petitioner submitted that witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution are highly interested witnesses and their evidence is with lot of discrepancies and both trial court and appellate court convicted the Revision Petitioner relying on such interested testimonies. It is further contended that PW-3 specifically stated in his evidence that he has not seen the driver of lorry, therefore, there is no identity of driver. It is further contended that one of the injured PW-4 has not supported the prosecution case and all these aspects are not considered by the courts below.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on account of rash and negligent driving of Revision Petitioner two persons lost their lives, whereas three persons were injured and both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
8. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of courts below are legal, proper and correct ?
9. P O I N T : According to prosecution, on the date of incident both the deceased persons, who are wife and husband were erecting pendal infront of their buddy shop and that lorry driven by accused came in a rash and negligent manner, while proceeding towards Suryapet with iron scrap load dashed the pendal and that resulted in death of wife and husband and injuries to two persons, who came to the shop for purchase of some articles from the shop. Out of sixteen witnesses examined; PW-1 is the complainant, who was also eye- witness to the occurrence, PWs 2, 3 and 4 are the injured and eye- witnesses, PWs 5 and 6 are also eye-witnesses to the occurrence, PW-7 is a mediator for scene observation report, PW-8 is the photographer, PW-9 is one of the inquest panchayatdar for the inquest held on the dead bodies of deceased Uma and Upender, PW-10 is the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Upender, PW-11 is the Medical Officer, who conducted post- mortem examination on the dead body of Uma, PW-12 is the Medical Officer, who examined PW-2, PW-13 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, PW-14 is the cleaner of crime vehicle, PW-15 is the Investigating Officer and PW-16 is the Medical Officer, who examined PW-3.
10. The main contention raised on behalf of Revision Petitioner is that all the witnesses are highly interested and that there are discrepancies in their evidence. As seen from the material, the very same grounds were urged before appellate court and the learned appellate Judge after elaborately discussing the evidence of these witnesses held that the objection is not tenable.
11. On a scrutiny of the evidence, I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by the trial court or by the appellate court.
12. PW-4 is cleaner of lorry who also sustained injuries in the very same accident and he has not supported the prosecution case. Now referring to that Revision Petitioner contended that when one of the eye-witness who is also injured has not supported the prosecution, the evidence of other witnesses cannot be accepted. But the said contention cannot be accepted because PW-4 being cleaner of the same crime vehicle is naturally interested in the accused but whereas PWs 2 and 3 who are customers, who came to the shop of the deceased, who sustained injuries categorically deposed as to the way in which the accident occurred.
13. As seen from the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 there are absolutely no discrepancies in their evidence with regard to the manner of accident. They both in one voice deposed that the driver of lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed pendal infront of buddy and responsible for the accident. PW-2 clearly stated that she went to the shop of the deceased for purchasing ‘Limca’ cool drink and while she was at the shop this accident occurred. According to her evidence, the lorry after hitting buddy shop finally halted after hitting a tree and in the process both PWs 2 and 3 and the cleaner received injuries. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that evidence of PWs 2 and 3 which is supported and corroborated with other two eye-witnesses, who are examined as PWs 5 and 6 would clinchingly show that the accident was purely due to the rash and negligent driving of Revision Petitioner and both trial court and appellate court have not committed any error in appreciating the evidence.
14. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both trial court and appellate court have not committed any error in convicting the Revision Petitioner and there are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
15. For these reasons, it is held that the revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. The trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of Revision Petitioner/accused for undergoing unexpired portion of the sentence, if any.
17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
19/09/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1647 OF 2007 Circulation No. Date: 19/09/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43