THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1243 of 2007 Date:21.04.2014 Between:
Md. Mokthar . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1243 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 03-09-2007 in Crl.A.No.72/2000 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar whereunder judgment dated 12-04-2000 in C.C.No.100/1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
On 06-05-1999, deceased boarded auto at old bus stand around 6:00 P.M., and P.W.1 came to know that the said auto met with an accident near Sangala Bridge and that his wife died in the accident due to rash and negligent act of auto driver and on the report of P.W.1, crime No.25/2009 was registered and the investigation revealed that the accused committed offence under Section 304-A IPC. On behalf of prosecution, 14 witnesses are examined and seven documents are marked and on behalf of accused no witnesses is examined and no document is marked.
On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty for an offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and out of fine of amount of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.3,000/- is ordered to be paid to the husband of P.W.1 as compensation. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Mahabubnagar and III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar at Gadwal on a reappraisal of evidence, dismissed the appeal while confining the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4 & 5 with regard to luggage in the auto and also vehicles coming in opposite direction. He submitted that the accident was due to burst of auto tyre and there is no fault on the part of auto driver. He submitted that when the accident was on 06-05-1999, Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime, vehicle on 08-05- 1999, which is two days after the accident and by that time it is quite possible to rectify the defect and in fact the M.V Inspector examined as P.W.12 admitted in his cross- examination that there is possibility of rectifying the defect. He submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court went wrong in convicting the revision petitioner and that he is entitled for acquittal. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record would clearly disclose that the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto and both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, the accident was on 06-05-1999, at about 6:00 P.M. Out of 14 witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased, P.Ws.2, 3, 4 & 5 are the passengers travelled in the auto who are eye- witnesses to the incident. P.W.6 has not supported the prosecution case and he was treated hostile. P.Ws.7, 8 & 9 are the inquest panchayatdars for the inquest held on the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws.10 & 11 are the mediators for observation of the scene of offence who attested Exs.P4 & P5-rough sketch. P.W.12 is the M.V.Inspector, P.Ws.13 & 14 are the investigating officers.
7. The main contention of Advocate for revision petitioner is that none of the witnesses deposed in their evidence about the rash and negligent act of the revision petitioner and both trial Court and appellate Court have failed to consider this aspect. In reply to this, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the evidence, it is clear that revision petitioner drove the auto at a high speed and due to high speed, he could not control the vehicle and that resulted in accident and both trial Court and appellate Court held that this act of revision petitioner would fall under rash and negligent driving and accepted the evidence of prosecution witnesses. As seen from the evidence eye- witnesses deposed that the accused drove the auto at a high speed and could not control the vehicle, due to which, the auto went towards his left and one of the inmates of the auto sustained injury and succumbed to the same while she was being shifted to hospital. It was suggested to the eye- witnesses that there was burst of rare wheel of auto and that caused the accident and all the witnesses denied the suggestion and that suggestion is not substantiated with any evidence and accused has not produced any evidence to show that there was burst of one of the rare wheel of the auto. Mere putting suggestion is not sufficient and this suggestion has to be supported by evidence. Motor Vehicle Inspector who is examined as P.W.12 clearly stated that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle and such is the case, the contention of the revision petitioner that the accident was due to the burst of the rare wheel of the auto cannot be accepted. Both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly discarded the objection of the revision petitioner and came to a right conclusion. Learned trial Judge, while referring to the evidence of eye-witnesses, on the aspect of the way in which the accused drove the vehicle, observed rash and negligence can be inferred from the circumstances and failure to control vehicle would also fall under this category. I do not find any wrong in the observation of the trial Court and in fact failure to control the vehicle due to high speed would definitely attract the act of rash and negligent and the trial Court and appellate Court have rightly negatived the objection of the revision petitioner. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent act of the revision petitioner and he was rightly convicted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The discrepancies pointed out by the advocate for revision petitioner are minor discrepancies and they do not go into the roots of the case. Both Courts have rightly appreciated evidence on record and I do not find any wrong findings in the judgments of Courts below.
8. For these reasons, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
9. Now coming to sentence, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The accident was in the year 1999 and the accused was 24 years old as on the date of the accident. Considering the facts of the case, nature of offence and the plea of the accused, I feel that the sentence of six months imprisonment can be reduced to three months while confirming the fine amount.
10. With this modification, the revision is dismissed.
11. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:21.04.2014 mrb