IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1806 OF 2006 Between:
MIrza Rafique Baig, s/o Mirza Rasheed Baig, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Gangman, PWD R/o. Ramnagar locality, Adilabad district. … Revision Petitioner/Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S. Chandrasekhar Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [Judgment follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1806 OF 2006 O R D E R :
This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment dated 30/10/2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Adilabad whereunder the judgment dated 07/10/2005 in CC.No. 169 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor, Adilabad district, is confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to this Revision are as follows :
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Indervally filed charge sheet against the Revision Petitioner alleging that on 21/7/2003 while PW- 1 along with one Jadav Mansing were traveling in Auto bearing No. AP-IT-7341 from Indervally to Dongaragoan and when they reached near Samakka cross-road around 12:15 p.m., a van bearing No. AP- 36-T/9888 coming from Adilabad side came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the Auto, as a result, the occupants of the Auto sustained injuries and one Rathod Dayaram, who sustained severe injuries died on the way to hospital. On a report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No. 31 of 2003 and after investigation found that the Revision Petitioner herein is responsible for the accident and filed charge sheet for the offences under section 304-A and 337 IPC.
3. The learned trial Judge took the charge sheet on file and conducted trial, during which PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked on behalf of prosecution. On behalf of Revision Petitioner, no one is examined and no documents are marked.
4. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the Revision Petitioner guilty for the offences under section 304-A and 337 IPC and sentenced him to suffer three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offences under section 304-A and 337 IPC respectively.
5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Revision Petitioner preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Adilabad and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad while dismissing the appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision is preferred.
7. Heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.
8. The main contention of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that the Revision Petitioner has not committed any offence and the accident was due to the negligence of the Auto driver. He further contended that the prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligent act of the offending vehicle. Lastly, he submitted that three months simple imprisonment is on higher side and it has to be reduced.
9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court and appellate court have properly appreciated evidence on record and came to right conclusion and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. He submitted that both courts took a lenient view while sentencing the Revision Petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
10. Now the point that arises for consideration in this Criminal Revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper ?
1 1 . Point : According to prosecution, the accident was on 21/7/2003 at about 12:15 p.m., near Samakka cross-road. Out of the nine witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs 1 and 2 are the injured persons, who were traveling in the Auto. PW-3 is the father of the deceased.PW-4 is the mother of the deceased. PW-5 is one of the inquest panchayathdar for the inquest held on the dead body of the deceased. PW-6 is the Investigating Officer. PW-7 is the Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW-8 is the Medical Officer, who examined the injured and issued the wound certificate. PW-9 is the Motor Vehicles Inspector, who certified that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. Both PWs 1 and 2, who were eye-witness to the accident, who deposed that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Revision Petitioner, who is driver of van bearing No. AP-36-T-9888. Both these witnesses are cross- examined on behalf of the Revision Petitioner but nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their testimony. Their evidence is further supported with the medical evidence of PW-8, who issued the wound certificate. Though the Revision Petitioner contended that the Auto driver is at fault and responsible for the accident, there is no material to support the said version. On the other hand, the evidence on record do disclose that the accident was purely due to rash and negligent driving of the Revision Petitioner. Both trial court and appellate court have elaborately considered all these aspects and the defence raised on behalf of the Revision Petitioner and came to right conclusion. Both courts have not committed any illegality in appreciating the evidence. I do not find any perversity in the findings of the trial court and appellate court and the findings are based on evidence.
12. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that both courts have not committed any error in convicting the Revision Petitioner.
13. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that three months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 304-A IPC is on higher side and requested this court to reduce the same. Here due to the rash and negligent driving of the Revision Petitioner one person at the age of nineteen years lost his life, whereas two persons sustained injuries.
14. Considering the nature of accident and the facts of the case, I feel that courts below have taken a very lenient view in imposing sentence of three months simple imprisonment. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
15. For these reasons, it is held that the Revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. The trial court shall take steps for apprehension of the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.
23/01/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1806 of 2006 Circulation No. 72 Date:23/01/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43