HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1424 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.
Between:
Thurpati Ellaiah.
…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.1424 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 25-8-2006 in Crl.A.No.46 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar whereunder judgment dated 22-2-2006 in C.C.No.363 of 2003 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Karimnagar is confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramadugu Police Station filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging that on 23-10-2002, the defacto complainant along with his wife and five others went to Husnabad to attend engagement function and while they were returning in a jeep and when they reached outskirts of Gundi around 8 P.M., the driver of the jeep drove the vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in death of one person and injuries to others. On the report of the defacto complainant, police registered a crime and filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. Trial court took cognizance of the offence and thereafter, conducted trial. During trial, seventeen witnesses are examined and twenty five documents are marked on behalf of prosecution. On behalf of accused, two contradictions from the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 6 are marked as Exs.D.1 and D.2 respectively. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial judge 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/- and also sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence and aggrieved by which, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The main contention of advocate for revision petitioner is that the accident is due to puncture to the front wheel of the vehicle and that there is no rash or negligent act on the part of the revision petitioner and both the trial court and appellate court have ignored this aspect. He further submitted that the M.V. Inspector who was examined as P.W.15 clearly admitted in his cross examination that he noticed puncture of right front tyre which is recorded in his report Ex.P.19. He further submitted that the accident was only due to puncture to the front tyre which is beyond the control of the driver and therefore, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor submitted that the point urged before this court was also raised before the trial court and the learned trial judge discarded the objection as there is evidence on record to show that the accident was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver but not due to tyre puncture. He further submitted that only in case of tyre burst, there is possibility of loosing control of the vehicle, but it is not so in a case of tyre puncture. He further submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the 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:
Most of the facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, on the fateful day, the revision petitioner was the driver of the crime vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle driven by the revision petitioner met with an accident which resulted a death and injuries to some persons.
8. The only point now urged before this court is that the M.V. Inspector noticed puncture of right front wheel which is recorded in his report and that the accident was due to tyre puncture only and there is no negligence on the part of driver. M.V. Inspector is examined as P.W.15 and he deposed in his evidence that on receipt of requisition from Sub-Inspector of Police, he inspected the crime vehicle bearing No. AP-7-T-9956 on 29-10-2002 and found damage to the vehicle which he recorded in column No.7 of his report. He deposed that accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. In the cross examination, he deposed that he mentioned in column No.8 that there was no failure of breaks. He further stated in general that there are chances of accident due to tyre burst. He further deposed that he noticed puncture to right front tyre. He further clarified that the driver will have sufficient time to control the vehicle in case of tyre puncture. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, there is difference between tyre puncture and tyre burst. In case of tyre burst, it is difficult for the driver to control the vehicle because, the entire air in the tyre will come in case of tyre burst and in case of tyre puncture, the air in the wheel will slowly come down and it will take some time for disappearance of entire air in t h e wheel. Even P.W.15 clarified this in his cross examination that driver will have sufficient time to control vehicle in case of tyre puncture, here the evidence on record would show that there is only tyre puncture but not tyre burst. Here the crime vehicle was inspected on 29- 10-2002 whereas the accident was on 20-10-2002. So, it is not known when the tyre is punctured. The witnesses travelled in the jeep stated in one voice that the driver drove the vehicle at a high speed, in rash and negligent manner and that caused accident. So, in view of the evidence of prosecution witnesses on record, the contention of the revision petitioner that the accident was due to tyre puncture cannot be accepted and the courts below rightly discarded that objection.
9. On a scrutiny of the material on record, I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence by the trial court and appellate court. All the findings of the courts below are based on sound reasoning and supported by evidence both oral and documentary.
10. On a thorough verification of the material on record, I have no hesitation in holding that both the courts correctly appreciated evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings.
11. For these reasons, this revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
13. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 20-1-2014.
Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1424 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.