HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.810 OF 2007 Dated 21-4-2014 Between:
Siyadri Sankara Rao.
And:
..Petitioner.
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
… Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.810 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is filed against judgment dated 21- 6-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2005 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder judgment dated 17-10- 2005 in C.C.No.291 of 2002 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
On 16-9-2002 in the morning, deceased left his house on his scooter bearing No.AP 30 A 4695 to go to Visakhkapatnam when he reached near bus stop near Madhurawada, around 8-30 A.M., accused being driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. City Bus route No.‘999’ bearing registration No.AP 10 Z 4376 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Visakhapatnam and dashed the scooter of the deceased, as a result, deceased fell on the road and died instantaneously. On the report of P.W.1, Crime No.333 of 2002 is registered and investigation revealed that the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. On these allegations, 8 witnesses are examined and 7 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, trail court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Visakhapatam and IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissed the appeal confirming conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that except the evidence of P.W.2, there is no evidence to support the prosecution case that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. He further submitted that P.W.2 is an interested witness who is known to P.W.1 and relying on testimony of interested witness without corroboration is not correct. He further submitted that according to prosecution case, accident was at the bus stop but according to rough sketch and other evidence, the accident was in the middle of the road and this inconsistent version would throw any amount of doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution case and benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. He further submitted that it is not possible for the driver to drive the bus at high speed near the bus stop and therefore, rash and negligent act attributed to the revision petitioner cannot be accepted.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.2 is an independent witness and he has deposed to the manner in which accident occurred and his evidence is supported and corroborated with the other witnesses 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 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:
According to prosecution, on 16-9-2002, at about 8.30 A.M., when deceased was proceeding on his scooter, accused drove his bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him which resulted death of the deceased. P.W.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased who gave complaint to police which is marked as Ex.P.1. He deposed that one known person informed him about the accident and on that, he rushed to the spot and noticed deceased died in a road accident of R.T.C. Bus in route No.999. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he rushed to the spot within ten minutes after the accident and that the deceased is husband of his cousin. He denied the suggestion that he did not know details of the accident and is deposing false. Eye witness to the accident is examined as P.W.2 and he deposed that he is doing footwear business. He deposed that on the date of accident at about 8-30 A.M., city bus in route No.999, while coming from complex side came at high speed and hit the scooter of the ceased who was coming in the opposite direction. He deposed that at the time of accident, driver drove the bus at high speed and lost control over the bus and hit against the deceased coming on scooter.
8. Referring to this evidence, advocate for revision petitioner submitted that P.W.2 stated that driver lost control of the bus and it cannot be termed as rash and negligent driving. But the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted because, according to P.W.2 due to high speed, driver lost control of the bus which reflects the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver. P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.4 is one of the mediators for inquest held on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.5 is the photographer for the scene of offence. P.Ws.6 and 8 are Investigating Officers and P.W.7 is the Medical Officer. Considering the evidence of the above witnesses, both trial court and appellate court held that accident was purely due to the negligence of the bus driver. According to the revision petitioner, rough sketch contradicts the evidence of P.W.2 with regard place of accident. This objection was raised before trial court and appellate court and both courts after considering evidence on record held that said discrepancy is not material in view of the fact that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence by the trial court or appellate court and both courts have rightly accepted the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
9. On a scrutiny of the evidence on record, I have no hesitation in holding that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence and rightly convicted the revision petitioner and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial court.
10. Now coming to the sentence part, trial court sentenced revision petitioner to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that the offence was about 12 years back and the petitioner is an employee in A.P.S.R.T.C. and considering these aspects, the period already undergone may be treated as punishment.
11. In support of his argument, he relied on a decision reported in PYARE LAL v. STATE OF
[1]
RAJASTHAN ( ) wherein the accused therein
undergone protracted trial for more than 21 years. Considering the same, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. It is not known from that decision for how many days, the accused therein was in jail during the pendency of trial. But here in our case, as seen from the record, revision petitioner was hardly in jail for a few days i.e., 4 or 5 days and not more than that and there was no protracted trial. Therefore, the decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the case on hand.
12. Advocate for revision petitioner further relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in PUTTASWAMY v. STATE OF
[2]
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER ( ). In that case,
Honourable Supreme Court reduced the period already undergone subject to payment of fine in view of the fact that there was compromise between the parties at Supreme Court level and considering the same, the period already undergone was treated as punishment. Here in our case, there is no such compromise and therefore, that decision has no application.
13. Considering the facts of the case, gravity of offence and the plea of the revision petitioner, I feel that one year imprisonmp;;ent can be reduced to six months while confirming the fine amount.
1 4 . With this modification, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
15. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 21-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.810 OF 2007 Dated 21-4-2014
[1] 2013 (3) ALT (Crl.)26 (NRC)
[2] (2009) 1 SCC 711