THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.404 of 2007 Date:19.06.2014 Between:
Songa Jogaiah . Petitioner.
AND The States of Telengana and Andhra Pradesh, rep by its’ Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the states of Telangana and A.P.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.404 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 15-03-2007 in Crl.A.No.133/2006 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak whereunder judgment dated 21-11- 2006 in C.C.No.102/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jogipet was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
Sub-Inspector of Police, Shankarampet filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 05-01-2005, P.W.1 came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that the accused drove tractor bearing No.A.P.23-D-1894 with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted death of her son, who fell down underneath the tyre, who was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor and on that, a case in Crime No.02/2005 was registered and investigation revealed that the revision petitioner committed offence under Section 304-A IPC. On these allegations, trial Court examined 13 witnesses and marked 12 documents on behalf of prosecution and on behalf of accused, no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Medak and the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed the 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.4, there is no other evidence to prove the rash and negligent act of the revision petitioner. He further submitted that evidence of prosecution witnesses is with full of infirmities and inconsistencies and convicting the revision petitioner relying on such evidence is not correct. He further submitted that Investigating Officer-P.W.13 stated in his evidence, that there are no caution boards showing the speed breakers or zebra lines and therefore, the accused has no opportunity to notice the speed breakers, therefore, there is no negligence on his part. He further submitted that accused is aged about 55 years and he has already suffered by attending the Courts since 2005 and the period already undergone may be treated as punishment. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the Courts have rightly appreciated evidence on record and the evidence of P.W.4 who is an eye-witness is supported and corroborated with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, the accident was on 05-01-2005, at about 11:45 A.M. On the date of incident, the deceased was travelling in the Tractor and he sat on the mud guard of the Tractor and fell down near the speed breaker and died and according to prosecution, the accused drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and at the speed breaker, the vehicle jumped and the deceased fell down from the tractor to underneath the tyre. To prove the accident, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and out of them, P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant who gave report to the police. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased, P.W.3 is sister of the deceased, P.Ws.4, 5 & 6 are the eye-witnesses. P.W.7, 10 & 11 are the inquest panchyatdars and mediators. P.W.8 is the owner of the tractor, P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination, P.W.12 is the M.V.I and P.W.13 is the investigating officer. Out of 13 witnesses, P.Ws.4 & 5 are material witnesses.
P.W.4 deposed in his evidence that on the date of the incident, he boarded the crime tractor go to Shankarampet and he and the deceased-Ramesh were sitting on either side of the tractor on the mud guards. He deposed that he was sitting on the left side of the tractor and the deceased was sitting on right side of the tractor and when the tractor reached near Paga Cheruvu near Machapally, the accused drove the vehicle at a high speed and that he advised him to drive slowly, but he did not hear him and when the tractor reached near speed breaker due to impact, deceased fell down from the tractor and that he too also fell down and sustained some bleeding injuries and the tractor ran over on the deceased and he died due to injures. P.W.5 deposed that he also boarded the tractor and when the tractor reached near vagu and due to jerk on account of speed breaker, the deceased fell out of the tractor and the tyre ran over him and he succumbed to injuries. He supported the version of P.W.4 and this witness was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused. P.W.6 also deposed in the same lines who was also travelling in the same tractor. The evidence of these three witnesses is supporting and corroborating with each other with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner i.e., tractor driver. P.Ws.7, 10 & 11 have not supported the prosecution case, but the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 & 6 and the other circumstances would clinchingly support the prosecution version. According to the evidence of Motor Vehicle Inspector-P.W.12, the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. The main contention of the Advocate for revision petitioner is that investigating officer has admitted that there are no caution boards or zebra lines for the speed breaker, therefore, the accused has no chance to observe it. It is clear from evidence the accident was during day time at about 11:45 A.M., and according to evidence of P.W.4, he cautioned the driver, but he did not heed to his advice. So the objection of the Advocate for revision petitioner with regard to non-observance of speed breaker cannot be accepted.
7. As seen from the material available on record, both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and came to a correct conclusion and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and appellate Court with regard to conviction recorded against the petitioner. I also do not find any wrong findings in the judgments of the Courts below on any of the material aspects. On a over all scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
8. Now coming to sentence part, trial Court sentenced the revision petitioner to suffer six months imprisonment. As seen from the judgment, trial Court questioned the accused with regard to quantum of sentence and considered his representation while awarding the sentence. According to his representation, he has got small children and if he is in jail, his children including his wife and parents would suffer as he is the sole breadwinner of the family. Considering this representation, the trial Court imposed imprisonment of six months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. Now the request of the Advocate for revision petitioner is that since the petitioner is aged about 55 years and he has already suffered for the last 10 years, the period already undergone may be treated as punishment. But the offence proved against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Considering the facts of the case, gravity of the offence and age of the petitioner into consideration, I feel that six months imprisonment can be reduced to four months and with this modification, Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, revision is dismissed confirming the conviction recorded against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC but the sentence of six months imprisonment is reduced to four months.
10. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of the sentence.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:19.06.2014 mrb