HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.215 OF 2007 Dated 21-4-2014 Between:
Jakkula Venkata Ramanaiah.
Petitioner.
And:
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.215 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 2-1-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.271 of 2006 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur whereunder judgment dated 29-5-2006 in C.C.No.254 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet filed charge sheet alleging that revision petitioner is driver of lorry bearing No.A.P.7T-1998, on the intervening night of 23/24-3-2004 at about 3 A.M., P.Ws.1 to 5 after completion of their coolly work engaged lorry bearing No.A.D.M.1108 to return back to their native village and their lorry when reached near Kakani cross-road developed some problem, for which, the driver and cleaner stopped the lorry and were attending to repair work and at that time, lorry bearing No.A.P.7.T-1998 driven by accused came from back side in a rash and negligent manner dashed stationed lorry of A.D.M.1108, due to which, driver and cleaner of lorry A.D.M.1108 and one of the inmates who was watching repair died in the accident and many persons received injuries and on the report of P.W.4, police registered crime No.72 of 2004 and investigation revealed that the revision petitioner is liable for punishment for offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. On these allegations, 21 witnesses are examined and 22 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. and sentenced him for two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and six months for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. and Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Guntur and III Additional District and Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that according to prosecution, revision petitioner dashed a stationed lorry which resulted, three deaths and injuries. He submitted that no one deposed about the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner and all of them only stated that he drove the vehicle at high speed. He further submitted that in the lorry driven by the revision petitioner, there was hay-stack and with such load, it is highly difficult for any driver to go at high speed or drive in a rash and negligent manner. He further submitted that the accident was in the early hours and admittedly, the other lorry developed some mechanical problem and it was stationed, both cleaner and driver were attending to repair work. He further submitted that no parking lights are put on and no boulder near the stationed lorry was put to indicate that there is a stationed lorry and it is highly difficult to visualize a stationed lorry without such signals and there is contributory negligence on the part of driver of the stationed lorry who is deceased and without considering these aspects, both trial court and appellate court have mechanically convicted the revision petitioner and therefore, the judgments of the courts below are to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is ample evidence to show that revision petitioner is responsible for the accident and both trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
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, the accident was on the intervening night of 23/24-3-2004 near Kakani cross road. According to prosecution, lorry bearing No.A.D.M.1108 developed some mechanical problem on the way for that the driver stopped the vehicle and was attending to repair work along with his cleaner and at that time, crime lorry driven by revision petitioner came behind the stationed lorry and dashed it, due to which, three persons died and P.Ws.1 to 5 and some others received injuries.
8. P.W.1 deposed that he was travelling in the lorry bearing No.A.D.M.1108 and after crossing Narasaraopet, near Kakani cross roads, the lorry was stopped to attend some repair work and when the cleaner and driver were attending to the repair work, one lorry came behind with a load of hay-stack at a high speed and dashed the stationed lorry. He deposed that he sustained injuries due to the dash. In the cross examination, he deposed that he was in the cabin of the stationed lorry at the time of accident. P.W.2 deposed that at the time of accident, he was in the body of lorry and was sleeping and he cannot say how the accident occurred. P.W.3 deposed that he woke up only after the accident and he was sleeping at the time of accident. P.W.4 deposed that he was not sleeping but some in the stationed lorry were sleeping and that he saw the lorry that came behind their lorry at high speed but he deposed that he has not stated before the police that he has seen the lorry that came behind their stationed lorry. P.W.5 deposed that he cannot say how the accident occurred and he was sleeping at the time of accident. The other witnesses P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 who were also travelling in the same lorry have not stated anything against the accused and according to their evidence, they only came to know about the accident, as they were sleeping at that time. The other witnesses are inquest panchayatdars and relatives of the deceased, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Medical Officers and police officials.
9. So the main witness out of the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 is P.W.1. He specifically stated that he was in the cabin of stationed lorry at the time of accident. So as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, he cannot see the lorry that came behind stationed lorry from the cabin of the lorry in which he was sitting. The other witnesses P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 have deposed that they have not seen the accident and they were sleeping at that time and they only woke up after the accident. Only P.W.4 deposed that he has seen the lorry that came behind their stationed lorry as he was not sleeping at that time. He only stated in his evidence that the crime lorry has come at high speed, he nowhere stated that there was rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime lorry. Admittedly, there was hay-stake in the crime vehicle and accident was during the early hours. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the stationed lorry has not put up parking lamps or boulders indicating that it is stopped for repair work. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no steps were taken by the driver of stationed lorry to indicate incoming vehicles that this lorry is stopped due to mechanical defect. As rightly pointed out by the advocate for revision petitioner, on the high way, particularly, at that odd hour, it is highly difficult to visualize for any driver about the stationed lorry unless there is some indication. Here, from the evidence, it is also clear that the stationed lorry was engaged to carry nearly thirty coolies in the body of the lorry when the lorry is meant for carrying only goods and carrying passengers without any valid permit or licence, is definitely a gross negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry.
10. From the record, it is clear that there is gross negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry both in carrying passengers and also stopping the vehicle on a national high way without putting parking lights or putting with some boulders indicating that his vehicle is stopped. These aspects are not considered by the trial court and appellate court. Because there are three deaths and injuries to some persons both trial court and appellate court have convicted the revision petitioner.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there is absolutely no evidence to show that there is a rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of crime vehicle, on the other hand, the evidence would show that there is gross negligence on the part of driver of stationed lorry.
12. When the evidence on record would show that there is contributory negligence on the part of the stationed lorry, the courts below ought to have extended benefit of doubt to the revision petitioner. But both trial court and appellate court have not done so.
13. For these reasons, I am of the view that both trial court and appellate court have erred in convicting the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 and 304-A I.PC.
14. As the trial court and appellate court have committed error in convicting the revision petitioner, judgments of both courts are liable to be set aside.
15. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Judgments of trial court and appellate court are set aside and revision petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled and fine amount shall be refunded.
16. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 21-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.215 OF 2007 Dated 21-4-2014