HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1476 OF 2006 Dated 20 -1-2014.
Between:
P.Yugandhar Reddy.
…Petitioner.
And:
The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1476 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 1-9- 2006 in Crl.A.No.261 of 2004 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle, wherein judgment dated 14-10-2004 in C.C.No.152 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Punganur, is confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
On 1-2-2002 at about 5.15 P.M., the accused being driver of lorry bearing No.AP03 U 1749 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed an auto bearing No.AP03 T 9780, as a result, three persons received injuries and out of them one died later. One T.Sankara travelling in the lorry also received injuries and on the complaint from K.Muniraja, a crime was registered and investigated which revealed that the accident was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP03 U 1749. Trial court examined 11 witnesses and marked thirteen documents besides two Material Objects and on a consideration of the same, found the lorry driver guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A I.P.C., 337 I.P.C. and 279 I.P.C. and also under Sections 134(a) & (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and convicted him. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions, Chittoor and the VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Madanapalle on reappraisal of the evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court. Aggrieved by the judgments of trial court and appellate court, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that the accident was due to fault of auto driver but as the auto has no insurance, the case is foisted against the lorry driver to enable the family members of the deceased and injured persons to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. He submitted that the road at the place of accident is in jig jag manner with speed breaker because of turning, therefore, it is highly impossible to drive a vehicle at high speed or in a rash and negligent manner but the courts below failed to appreciate this aspect. He further submitted that the main independent witnesses who are cited as L.Ws.5 and 6 are not examined by prosecution for the reasons best known to it and non- examination of crucial witnesses would create any amount of doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution case and that benefit should go in favour of the accused. He further submitted that no scene observation report is prepared and the rough sketch prepared is contra to the evidence on record with regard to direction of the road. He further submitted that these aspects have not been considered by the courts below and therefore, the conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the points now argued on behalf of the revision petitioner were also argued before the courts below and the trial court and appellate court while appreciating the evidence discarded these objections. He further submitted that one of the inmates of the lorry is examined as P.W.4 and he fully supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and all of them are strangers and simply because they received injuries they cannot be termed as interested witnesses. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is to be treated as independent witnesses and their testimony is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and both the courts rightly convicted the accused by accepting evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgments of the courts below.
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:
It is a case of head on collision between lorry and auto wherein one person died and three persons received injuries. Out of three injured, one injured is the inmate of lorry and the other two are inmates of auto. P.Ws.1 to 4 deposed in their evidence that the accident was due to negligence of the driver of the lorry which aspect remained unrebutted. Out of P.Ws.1 to 4, Shankar who is examined as P.W.4 is inmate of lorry and his evidence is very relevant. He clearly stated in his evidence that the driver of lorry lost control over the vehicle due to excess speed. Admittedly, this witness is travelling in the lorry, so, he has every chance to notice not only the speed but also rash and negligent act of the accused. He clearly deposed that driver of his vehicle lost control due to driving the vehicle at high speed which resulted in dashing auto. Though it was suggested to P.Ws.1 to 4 that driver of auto was negligent and responsible for the accident, that suggestion remained uncorroborated and remained as a suggestion only. Further, evidence of P.W.4 is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on all material aspects. As rightly pointed out by learned Public prosecutor, when four eye witnesses have stated about rash and negligent act of the accused driver, non-examination of other two eye witnesses i.e. L.Ws.5 and 6 is no way fatal to the prosecution case. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, even these P.Ws.1 to 4 have to be treated as independent witnesses because they are strangers to the accused. they cannot have any ill-will or motive to speak against the accused. So, the objection of the defence counsel for non-examination of L.Ws.5 and 6 cannot be sustained.
8. Next contention of revision petitioner is that road at the scene of offence is in jig jag manner with a curve and speed breaker and it is not possible to drive any vehicle at high speed much less in a rash and negligent manner. But P.W.4 clearly stated in his evidence that the accused lost control of the vehicle due to high speed which clearly indicates that the accused drove vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in spite of jig jag condition of the road which is a positive proof to attract the ingredients of Section 304 A and 337 I.P.C. In fact, this point was raised before the trial court also and on appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, with regard to road direction at the scene of offence, the trial court negatived the contention of accused and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence by the trial court on this aspect.
9. Both the trial court and appellate court have considered evidence of prosecution witnesses in right manner and they have not committed any illegality or irregularity in accepting the evidence of main material witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4. Both the courts rightly convicted the accused on proper appreciation of evidence on record and I do not find any perversity in the findings of the trial court and appellate court.
10. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
12. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
Dated 20-1-2014.
Dvs KUMAR JUSTICE S.RAVI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1476 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.