HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1853 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.
Between:
Sayana Nagaraju.
…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 REVISON CASE No.1853 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 26-10-2006 in Crl.A.No.163 of 2003 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam whereunder judgment dated 18-8- 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram in C.C.No.95 of 2001 is confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Ichapuram filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 25-9- 2001 at about 2 P.M., the revision petitioner being driver of lorry bearing No.A.P.16 U 5947 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner while going towards A.S.Peta from Ichapuram at high speed and dashed against a lorry coming in opposite direction bearing registration No.A.P.11 V 8928 on N.H.5 resulting death of driver of opposite lorry and injures to cleaner of the opposite lorry, thereby, accused committed offences under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. and 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act. Trial court took cognizance of the offences and proceeded with trial. During trial, 12 witnesses are examined and 19 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution. O n an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the revision petitioner is found guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. and 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act. He is sentenced to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C., fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C., fine of Rs.500/- each for the offences under Sections 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Srikakulam confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court. Aggrieved by the judgment of both the courts, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence from any of the independent witnesses to prove guilt of the accused. He further submitted that P.W.1 is a stock mediator for the police and there are two or three criminal cases against him in the same police station and therefore, evidence of such witnesses without corroboration cannot be accepted. He further submitted that the injured cleaner of the opposite lorry has not supported the prosecution case who is a direct eye witness whereas P.W.1 is a chance witness. He further submitted that both the courts erred in convicting the accused and that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor submitted that both the courts concurrently held that the accused committed offences under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. and 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act. and that there are no grounds to interfere with those 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 25-9- 2001 at about 2 P.M., near Arch of Swetchavathi Ammavari temple on N.H.5 in which one person died and another received injuries. As many as 12 witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution. P.Ws.3, 4 and 7 have not supported the prosecution case. P.Ws.8, 9 and 11 are official witnesses. P.Ws.10, 6 and 5 are mediators. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the witnesses to the incident. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that on 25-9-2001 he was coming from A.S.Peta and going towards Ichapuram, on a cycle and he witnessed the accident. In the cross- examination, he deposed that he was at a distance of 100 metres towards north of the scene when the accident took place. He further deposed that 4 or 5 persons gathered soon after the accident. He further deposed that he acted as mediators in 15 to 20 cases of Ichapuram Town Police Station. He also deposed that he was accused in C.C.No.56 of 1999 which was pending by the date of accident. He deposed that he was also accused in another criminal case relating to cooperative Society which was transferred to the same trial court.
8. P.W.2 who is running a pan shop nearby accident spot deposed that while he was taking lunch, on hearing a sound, he came out and found that two lorries were involved in the accident and that driver of the empty lorry was found struck to the steering and the cleaner of empty lorry received injuries.
9. P.W.7 is the cleaner of the empty lorry who deposed that he was sleeping in the lorry and he woke up after the accident and their driver died at the place of accident within 15 minutes and that he do not know due to whose fault the accident occurred. The remaining witnesses are official witnesses. Out of the main witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2, as rightly pointed out, both the courts below only relied on the evidence of P.W.1.
10. Now the question that is to be decided is whether the sole testimony of P.W.1 can be relied on to convict the accused.
11. According to P.W.1, he was proceeding on a cycle on N.H.5 and he was 100 metres away from the spot when the accident occurred. He also admitted in the cross examination that it took for about 15 minutes for him to reach the spot after the accident. So, these two statements of P.W.1 could clearly indicate that he was not at the accident spot at the time of accident and he was 100 metres away. Now, the core point is whether rash and negligent act can be witnessed from a distance of 100 metres? Admittedly, P.W.7 who was in the empty lorry which was involved in the accident has not stated anything against the revision petitioner. In fact, he is the right person to speak about rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle whereas P.W.1 is a chance witness. In the cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that he acted as mediator in 15 or 20 cases to the same police station. He also stated that he is involved in Criminal cases relating to the same police station. So, naturally, he has to be termed as interested witnesses to the prosecution and relying on sole testimony of such witness, in my view is absolutely incorrect.
12. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that 4 or 5 persons have gathered after the accident. The prosecution has cited only two witnesses i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.7 as eye witnesses and both of them have not supported. Even P.W.1 did not say anything with regard to rash and negligent act of the revision petitioner, he only stated that vehicle driven by revision petitioner dashed against the empty lorry and that resulted accident.
13. So, considering all these aspects, I am of the view that benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused as there is no convincing and acceptable evidence for the charges levelled against him.
14. For the above reasons, I am of the view that both the courts erred in convicting the accused and failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper manner.
15. Therefore, it is held that both the courts committed error in convicting the accused and therefore, judgments of trial court and appellate court are to be set aside.
16. In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed and the conviction imposed against the revision petitioner is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled and fine amount, if any paid, shall be returned to the accused.
17. 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.1853 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.