1. Challenge in this Criminal Revision Case is to the judgment, dated 16.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2010, on the file of  III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinda (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant confirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) in C.C.No.158 of 2008, on the file of Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Peddapuram (“Magistrate” for short), dated 08.06.2010.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet in Crime No.47 of 2008 of Gandepalli Police Station, is that the accused is resident of Pitchaiah Street, Labbipeta, Vijayawada. He had valid driving license to drive the heavy motor vehicles. He was the driver of Lorry A.P.16-TV-1345 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”). On 15.04.2008 at about 10.00 p.m., L.W.1-Gunimakala Venkateswarlu, one Sagi Suribabu, S/o Satyanarayana, 22 years (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) and L.W.8-Gollapalli Durgayya, were coming to Borrampalem village from Talluru Village on their respective bicycles. At about 10-30 p.m., they reached outskirts of Borrampalem village on National Highway 5 road, near to the Electrical Sub-Station. At that time, the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while proceeding to Jaggampeta towards Rajahmundry side and dashed them from backside. On account of the said accident, they all fell down on the road with bicycles. The deceased received severe crushed injury on his head and died on the spot. L.W.8 was dragged to some distance and he received bleeding injuries on his person. Later, he was shifted to GSL Hospital, Rajahmundry, in 108 Ambulance and he was admitted in the hospital. The complainant received simple ruptured injuries. On the basis of a report from the complainant, a case in Crime No.47 of 2008 was registered and investigated into on 16.04.2008 at 1-30 a.m. During the course of investigation, L.W.15-N. Ramarao, Head Constable 1854 of Gandepalli Police Station, visited the scene of offence and inspected the same in the presence of L.W.9-Pusuluri Vishanadha Rao and L.W.10-Pallapu Satyanarayana, the mediators. He got drafted observation report and photographed the scene in different angles with the help of L.W.7-P. Suribabu, Photographer. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and examined the statements of the witnesses and blood relatives. He forwarded the dead body for post mortem to Government Hospital, Peddapuram. 

4. While so, on 19.04.2008 morning at 8-00 a.m., the accused surrendered before L.W.16-A. Rambabu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandepalli Police Station, introduced himself that he is working as a driver on the offending lorry and admitted his guilt relating to the accident that took on N.H.5 road on 15.04.2008 at 10.30 p.m. and produced the record pertaining to the offending vehicle and his driving license. After verifying his identity, L.W.16 arrested the accused at 8-30 a.m. after informing the grounds of arrest. He verified the records pertaining to the offending vehicle and sent him to the remand. L.W.12-V.S. Janakiramam, Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Rajahmundry, inspected the offending vehicle, seized the original driving license of the accused and issued a report stating that the accident occurred is not due to any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle. L.W.13-Dr. M. Ashok Kumar, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Peddapuram, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem report stating that the death was due to multiple injuries with shock. L.W.14-Dr. B. Sree Rama Rao, the Medical Officer, GSL Hospital, Rajanagaram, treated L.W.8-injured and issued wound certificate opining that all the injuries are simple in nature. Hence, the charge sheet.

5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. After appearance of the accused and on compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), the accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, during the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material in the evidence let in by the prosecution for which he denied the same and stated that he did not commit any offence and he has no defence witnesses.

7. The learned Magistrate on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC, convicted him under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and further sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 337 of IPC.

8. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2010, on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the said judgment in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2010, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

9. Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment, dated 16.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2010, on the file learned Additional Sessions Judge, is sustainable in law and facts in terms of legality, regularity or propriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same

Point:-

10. Sri Sheik Mohammad Ismael, learned counsel, representing M/s. D. Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that except the solitary evidence of P.W.1 which has no corroboration from P.W.6, who was another direct witness to the occurrence, there was nothing on record to prove the guilt against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were interested in nature. P.W.6 did not identify the accused. The incident in question was alleged to be happened at 10-00 p.m., as such, witnesses had no chance to identify the accused. Evidence is lacking relating to identity of the accused as well as rash and negligent act alleged against the accused. Both the Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge fell in error in maintaining the conviction against the accused, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relying upon the decisions in (1) Pauly vs. State of Kerala 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 6509 , (2) G. Srinivasulu vs. The State of A.P. 11 (2023) ACC 693 and (3) Ravi Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2005(2) ALT 26 (SC).

12. Smt. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that P.W.1 was the injured witness and P.W.6 was also the injured witness. They categorically testified the manner in which the accused drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused instantaneous death of the deceased and dragged P.W.6 to a considerable distance on the road. P.W.1, P.W.6 and the deceased were peddling on two bicycles. The deceased and P.W.6 were moving on one bicycle ahead of P.W.1. The incident in question was near an Electrical Sub-Station. The defence counsel elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 that there was an electrical light illumination from electrical Sub-Station at the place of accident. Apart from this, the accused surrendered before P.W.12-the investigating officer and produced the record pertaining to the offending vehicle and Ex.P.19-Bill of loading discloses that he was the driver of the offending vehicle. The contention of the accused that the prosecution did not establish the identity is devoid of merits. Both the Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

13. As seen from Ex.P.1, report lodged by P.W.1, the brief contents are that on 15.04.2008 at 10-00 p.m., Sagi Suribabu (deceased) and G. Durgayya were moving on bicycle. He (de facto complainant) was following on another bicycle. When they reached near Current Office at N.H.5 road, Suribabu and Durgayya were moving ahead and he was following them on the bicycle. Then the lorry A.P.16-TV-1345 came with high speed in a negligent manner without blowing any horn and hit them and Sagi Suribabu received fatal injuries and died on the spot. G. Durgayya was dragged to some distance. He (P.W.1) fell down with injuries. After some time, 108 Ambulance shifted them to the hospital. So, when the incident in question was happened around 10-30 p.m., the report came to be lodged at 1-30 a.m.

14. P.W.1 was no other than the injured and the de factocomplainant. P.W.2 was the father of deceased, who came to know about the occurrence. P.W.3 was the Photographer, who took Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6-photographs at the spot at the instance of the police. P.W.4 was the relative of the deceased, who came to know about the occurrence. P.W.5 was also a person, who came to know about the occurrence. P.W.6 was another direct witness to the occurrence. P.W.7 was the mediator to the observation report as well as the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.8 was the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.9 was the Head Constable, who registered the FIR and took up investigation. P.W.10 was Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the offending vehicle. P.W.11 was the Medical Officer, who examined P.W.6 and issued wound certificate. P.W.12 was Sub-Inspector of Police before whom the accused surrendered and produced the record.

15. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the concurrent findings of the Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge. The scope of the Criminal Revision Case is limited as to whether the judgment of the Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

16. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he supported the case of the prosecution. His narration, in brief, is that on 15.04.2008 he along with L.W.8 and the deceased started at Talluru village on their bicycles at 10-00 p.m. They reached Borrampalem electrical sub-station at 10-30 p.m. One lorry came from Jaggampeta area and hit against the deceased, who was peddling his bicycle. The crime vehicle hit against the rear side of the deceased bicycle. The number of the crime vehicle is 1345. It came at high speed and hit against the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the scene of offence. L.W.8 also sustained injuries when the crime vehicle hit against him. L.W.8 was shifted to the hospital in 108 Ambulance. He can identify the driver of the crime vehicle. He has seen the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He lodged Ex.P.1 before the police. Crime vehicle crossed his bicycle and hit against the rear side of the bicycle of the deceased and L.W.8. His bicycle was shaken when the crime vehicle crossed him. The crime vehicle dragged L.W.8 to a distance of four meters. Witness identified the accused in the dock as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

17. As the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 is hearsay in nature, it need not be discussed here in detail. Their substance is that they came to know about the occurrence through some others.

 18. Now, another crucial witness was P.W.6, who went along with the deceased on the bicycle of the deceased and he was one of the injured. So, his evidence is that he along with the deceased and Venkanna started on their bicycles at their tiles factory in order to reach Borrampalem village. When they reached Current Office, near to their village, one lorry came from Jaggampeta and hit against him and deceased. The crime vehicle hit against the rear side of their bicycles at a time. He sustained grievous injuries. His trouser was hooked to the lorry. Crime vehicle dragged him to a distance of 100 yards. His head hit against the ground and dragged to a distance of 100 yards. The Crime vehicle ran over the body of the deceased. He came to know that some persons have stopped the crime vehicle and informed to Ambulance. He has not seen the driver of the crime lorry. He lost conscious immediately after the incident. The crime vehicle came at high speed and hit against the rear side of their bicycle.

19. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the identity aspect of the accused. As evident from Ex.P.1, the report lodged by P.W.1, he claimed that he furnished the name of the driver of the offending vehicle as Sk. Bajee and he came to know about the name through the Cleaner of the lorry. Undoubtedly, Ex.P.1 contains the name of the accused. Apart from this, P.W.1 identified the accused. According to the revision petitioner, there was no proper identification, as such, he is entitled for an acquittal.

20. In this regard, he would rely upon two decisions. Turning to Pauly’s case (1 supra), it was a case where the revision was filed against the concurrent findings of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class and Additional Sessions Court with regard to the conviction of the accused under Section 304-A of IPC. The factual matrix in the above said case is such that the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 that there was sufficient light available at the scene of offence to identify the accused was a subsequent improvement. Further the evidence of them that the accused stopped the lorry, came out and looked at the place of offence and ran away was also subsequent improvement. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Kerala High Court interfered with the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as Additional Sessions Court.

21. Turning to the decision in Ravi Kumar’s case (3 supra), it has nothing to do with the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and it is totally misquoted under the present circumstances. It is a case under Sections 302 and 304 (II) which has nothing to do with the present situation.

22.  Another decision of Telangana High Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding rash and negligent act which will be dealt with hereinafter while dealing with the case of the prosecution against the rash and negligent act of the accused.

 23. Now, as evident from the cross examination part of P.W.1 when his veracity was tested, he deposed in cross examination that there was an electrical light illumination from electric sub-station. He denied that there was no lighting at the place of accident. So, it is a case where P.W.1 did not improve any version in his chief examination that he identified the accused in the electricity illumination from the electrical sub-station. It was only during the cross examination when the defence counsel asked him as to how he identified the accused, he gave such an answer. The answer that was elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during cross examination cannot be taken as an omission. Apart from this, the rough sketch under Ex.P.16 categorically shows the existence of an electrical sub-station nearer to the scene of offence. The testimony of P.W.1 that he identified the accused in the electricity illumination from Electrical Sub-Station has support from Ex.P.16, rough sketch. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 stands to the test of scrutiny. The evidence of P.W.6 that he could not identify the accused is only a fair statement. If really the prosecution wanted to manufacture the evidence against the accused, definitely, P.W.6 would have identified the accused. Leave apart the evidence of P.W.6, the case of the prosecution is very specific that accused surrendered himself before P.W.12, one of the investigating officers and produced the record pertaining to the offending vehicle. According to P.W.12 on 19.04.2008 he arrested the accused when the accused surrendered himself before him and then he seized C-book and Ex.P.19-bill of loading. So, the evidence of P.W.12 is that the accused by surrendering himself before him produced C-book of the offending vehicle and Ex.P.19 bill of loading. Absolutely, the aforesaid evidence of P.W.1 was not at all subjected to cross examination. The only suggestion that was put forth before P.W.12 is that the accused is in no way connected in this case. The accused did not impeach the testimony of P.W.12 by denying that he produced C-book and Ex.P.19-bill of loading.

24. Now, as seen from Ex.P.19-bill of loading, it was dated 15.10.2009. Owner of the permit holder was P. Srinivasa Rao. Number of the vehicle is A.P.16-TV-1345 which is no other than the offending vehicle. So, those things were filled up at the time of loading of the vehicle. In the columns of signature of the carrier, there was signature of Sk. Baji (accused). Accused never sought to impeach the testimony of investigating officer by putting any suggestion that Ex.P.19 is a fabricated document. Apart from the oral evidence of P.W.1, there was un-impeached evidence in the form of Ex.P.19 showing that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. It is not the defence of the accused that though he signed Ex.P.19, he allowed any other person to drive the offending vehicle. Apart from this, accused has no say as to how the C-book of the vehicle was handed over to the investigating officer without any purpose. All these go to show that there was cogent evidence by the prosecution to prove the identity of the accused.

25. Coming to the rash and negligent act alleged against the accused, the evidence of P.W.1 was very categorical in chief examination as well as in cross examination. The accused by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed crossed the bicycle of P.W.1 and hit the bicycle of P.W.6 and the deceased which was going ahead of P.W.1 and on account of the same, the deceased received fatal injuries and P.W.6 fell down and he was dragged to some distance. Apart from this, the photographs taken by the investigating officer under Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6, present a terrific situation as to the manner of the accident. Dead body of the deceased was lying on the margin of the road. The bicycle of the deceased was also lying on the margin of the road beyond the white markings. So, it is very clear that though it was a big NH.5 road when P.W.1, P.W.6 and the deceased were peddling on their respective bicycles on the extreme margin of the road, they were hit by the offending vehicle which crossed white markings. All these go to show that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle.

26. Coming to the decision of G. Srinivasulu’s case (2 supra), it was a case where the evidence was lacking to prove the rash and negligent act, as such, Telangana High Court interfered with the concurrent findings of the learned Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge. Here the evidence of P.W.6 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. Though he did not identify the accused but his evidence is very categorical that the offending vehicle hit against the rear side of their bicycle at a time and it dragged him to some distance on ground and it run over the body of the deceased. As this Court already pointed out, the photographs as well as rough sketch goes to prove that the incident was occurred on the extreme left side of the road when the deceased, injured and P.W.1 were moving on their respective bicycles.

27. Viewing from any angle, the evidence on record clinchingly proves the fact that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bicycles which were moving on the left side of the road. There is no dispute about the cause of death of deceased. The evidence of P.W.8 coupled with Ex.P.4 inquest report and further Ex.P.14 post mortem report reveals that the cause of death was due to multiple injuries due to shock. According to the evidence of P.W.10, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, coupled with Ex.P.17, the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle. Apart from this, as seen from the evidence of P.W.11, who treated the injured (P.W.6), he received simple injuries and his evidence is supported by Ex.P.18, the wound certificate of P.W.6. Both the Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The finding of facts arrived at by both the Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge are perfectly valid.

28. Having regard to the above, absolutely, this Court does not find any grounds so as to arrive at concurrent findings of the learned Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge.

29. In the light of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits, as such, it is liable to be dismissed.

30. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 16.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2010, on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinda.

31. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 11.03.2024 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant/accused and to report compliance to this Court.

32. The Registry is directed to forward the record along with copy of the order to the trial Court on or before 11.03.2024.

33. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.