CRLRC/1197/2010 of MOHD. AZMATH ALI Vs THE STATE OF A.P. on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal [Revision ][Case ][is ][hled ][questioning ][the]

judgment of the learned Principal [Sessions ][Judge' ][Medak ][at]dated [25th ][June, ][2O1O ][in ][Criminal ][Appeal]Sanga Reddy, No.25of2oog.Thesaidcriminalappealwaslrledaggrievedby the judgment of [the Judicial ][Magistrate ][of ][First ][Class']Zarreerabad in [C.C.No.360 ][of ][2005, ][dated ][21'O5'2OO9]wherein the accused [was ][convicted ][and ][sentenced ][to]undergo rigorous [imprisonment ][for ][one ][year and ][to ][pay]a fine of Rs. l,OO0/ , [in ][default ][of ][payment of hne' ][he ][shall]undergo simple [imprisonment ][for three ][months ][for]the olfence punishable [under ][Section ][304-A ][of ][the ][Indian]Penal Code.

2. Learned [counsel Shri ][C' ][Sharan ][Reddy ][for the ][Revision]Petitioner and the [learned Assistant ][trublic ][Prosecutor']represented the Parties.

3. The Criminal [Revision ][is ][preferred ][on ][various ][grounds']that the learned [PrinciP][al ][Sessions ][Judge, Medat ][at ][Sanga]

Reddy errecl in convicting the petitioner for the offencespunishable under Sections 304_4, 337 ald 338 of IpC.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner hassubmitted that on 11.10.2005 in the morning hours an autobearing No.Ap-23V_71 12 while going from Zaheerabad toRanjole at Digq,al Village rtret with an accident arrd it turnedturtle and injuries \ rere sustained to the passengerstravelling in the vehicle and a_lso resulted in the death of apassenger. The counsel submitted that the rdentity of thepetitioner as driver/accused is not proved and the petitioneris not the driver. The learned counsel submitted that theerridence has not been led and appreciated irt proper marlnerald the petitioner is not guilty of offence. The counsel hasinvited the atrention of this Court through the evidence ofPWs. 1 to 4 and that of pW.S, and submitted that pWs.1 to 4have turned hostile and do not support the case of theprosecution. The learned counsel has also taken throughthe evidence of pWs.6 to g, the evidence of pW.9, i.e.,Doctor, who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon, GovernmentHospital, Zaheerabad from 2OO4 to 2OO9. The counsel for

the petitioner [submitted ][that ][the ][Doctor ][was ][not ][cross-]examined by the [prosecution. ][PW'10, ][who ][is ][the ][A'S'l' ][of]Zaheerabad Rural [P.S-, ][was examined and ][that ][the ][evidence]of PW. 10 is crucial [as ][he ][seized ][the auto ][involved ][in ][the]crime from the [scene ][of ][offence ][under ][the ][cover ][of]panchanama. [Investigation was done ][by ][the ][Sub-Inspector]of Police. The counsel [further ][added ][that ][PW'1O ][was not]cross-examined [nor the ][Sub-lnspector ][of ][Police ][was ][cross-]examined. The [counsel ][for ][the ][petitioner ]-also [submitted]that there is no [mention ][of name ][of the ][auto ][driver ][in ][the]cornplaint, Registration [Certif,rcate ][Book ][of ][the ][vehicle' ][nor]the licence of the [auto ][driver ][were ][brought ][on ][record' ][It ][was]also contended [that the ][police ][failed ][to ][conduct ][Test]Identification Parade [to ][identify ][the ][driver ][of ][the ][crime]vehicle, therefore, [non-conducting ][of the test ][identihcation]parade is fatal to [the ][case ][of ][the ][prosecution' ][It ][was ][further]contended that [for the ][witnesses to ][turn ][hostile neither any]incentive nor any [compensation ][were ][paid' ][No ][documents](licence + R.C. Book) [were ][seized ][as ][to ][the ][identity of ][the]accused for [proving ][the ][guilt' ][The counsel submitted ][that]the prosecution [has miserably failed ][to ][bring ][home the ][guilt]

of the accused for rash and negligent driving so as to causethe accident and that the punishment of one ycar rrgorouslmpnsonment is harsh.the accident and that the punishment of one ycar rrgorouslmpnsonment is harsh.

4. l,earned counsel for the revision for the revision the revision petitioner reiied uponthe decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in V.K. Verma vs.Central Bureau of Investigationr, lor the proposition forreducing the sentence and enhancing the rine wh emaintaining conviction.

l,earned counsel for the revision for the revision the revision petitioner reiied upon

5. The learned learned Assistant public prosecutor public prosecutor prosecutor contendedthat the evidence of pW.S q,ho is a material u,itness in thecase had stated that he was travelling in the ituto fromZalreerabad to Ranjole and therefore, pw.s had theopportunity to travel along with the auto driver/accused soas to identify the auto driver/accused whose act of rash andnegligent driving caused the accident, leading to the death ofone person and injuries to others u,ho u,ere travelling in theauto. It is submitted by the Assistant public prosecutor thatPW.5 identified the driver/accused involved in the accidentand that it was also elicited in the cross_examrnzrtion that' lzor+1: scc nss The learned learned Assistant public prosecutor public prosecutor prosecutor contended PW.5 had no acquaintance [to ][the ][accused ][and had ][no]reason to depose [falsely. ][It ][was ][further ][submitted ][that ][PW'5]is the co-passenger [of the ][crime vehicle ][and ][had ][seen the]accused for some [time ][before ][the ][accident ][in ][day ][light ][and]therefore is a [reliable ][and ][trustworthy ][witness ][and ][his]evidence with [regard to the ][identity ][of ][the ][accused ][cannot ][be]and [the ][prosecution ][has ][proved ][the ][guilt ][of ][the]disputed accused/driver. [lt ][was ][further ][submitted ][that the ][accused]wasthedriverofthecrimevehicleonthedayofaccidenti.e., 11.10.2005 [in ][the ][morning hours ][bearing ][auto ][No'AP-]23V -7 112 and [it ][was ][because ][of the rash ][and ][negligent]driving of the [accused ][that ][the ][auto ][turned ][turtle' ][resulting]the death of one [passenger ][by ][name ][Javid ][and ][injuries ][to]PWs.2,3and5.ltwassubmittedthattheprosecutionwasable to prove [the ][guilt ][of ][accused ][for the ][offences ][punishable]under Sections [304-A, 337 and 338 ][ofIPC']

6. Heard learned [counsels, perused ][the orders ][passed by]the Courts below, [also ][perused ][the ][entire ][evidence ][on]record. Both the Courts [below ][a'fter ][appreciation of ][evidence]on record have [sentenced ][the ][revision ][petitioner' ][On ][a]

perusal of the judgments of the Courts belour ald theevidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that theevidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that theprosecution has been able to establish the identity of theaccused arrd that the vehicle was driven in ir rash andnegligent manner causing the death of one passenger andaccused arrd that the vehicle was driven in ir rash andnegligent manner causing the death of one passenger andsustaining injuries to the other passengers. There is noinfirmity in the manner in which the infirmity in the manner in which the iclentity of the accusedhas been established. Both the courts have rightly held thatthe evidence of pw5 is supported by pw2. It is *,er settledprinciple of law that the evidence of hostile u,itnesses cannotbe brushed away and to the extent of the evidencr. of hostilewitness which is supporting the evidence of otherindependent witnesses, such extent, can be consrcrered forarriving at proper conclusion. has been established. Both the courts have rightly held thatthe evidence of pw5 is supported by pw2. It is *,er settledprinciple of law that the evidence of hostile u,itnesses cannotbe brushed away and to the extent of the evidencr. of hostilewitness which is supporting the evidence of otherindependent witnesses, such extent, can be consrcrered forarriving at proper conclusion. The identity of the accusedhas been establishedhas been established by evidence of independent witnesssupported b3r statement of another witness. Hence thecontention of not conducting the test identification parade isbereft of reasons. The guilt of the accused for the offencessupported b3r statement of another witness. Hence thecontention of not conducting the test identification parade isbereft of reasons. The guilt of the accused for the offencespunishable under Sections 3O4_A, 337 and 33g of I.p.C. hasbeen established. been established. The accused failed to exercise reasonableand and proper care and caution s,hich resulted in thes,hich resulted in the occurrence of [the ][accident leading ][to ][the ][death ][of ][one]ald [injuries ][to ][other ][passengers']passenger This Court finds [[no ][grounds ][for ][interference ]][[grounds ][for ][interference ]][[for ][interference ]][[interference ]][[with ][the]][[the]]

7 . This Court finds [[no ][grounds ][for ][interference ]][[grounds ][for ][interference ]][[for ][interference ]][[interference ]][[with ][the]][[the]]judgments of the trial [Court ][and ][the ][appellate ][Court']Reliance [placed ][upon ][the ][Hon'ble Apex ][Court ][judgment ][is]misconceived. [In ][the matter ][before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Apex ][Court]the appellant [was ][aged ][76 ][and' ][had cardio vascular ][problems]and had undergone [physical incarceration for three ][months]and mental [incarceration ][for 30 ][years ][and in ][such]circumstances, [the Hon'ble ][Apex ][Court granted the relief']

For the offences, the offences, offences, [it ][cannot be ][said ][that ][the ][sentence]

8For the offences, the offences, offences, [[sentence]]imposedISinadequateso as to [justifY ][interference']Accordingly, [the ][Criminal ][Revision Case ][is ][dismissed ][and]the sentence [of ][imprisonment ][is upheld']

Miscellaneous [petitions, ][if ][any, ][pending ][in ][this]

Criminal Revision [Case, ][shall stand ][closed']

HNA KUMARISTRAR

sD/-sRl [T. ][KRls]DEPUTY

,TTRUE [COPY'I]

SECTION [OFFICER]

To,

'1. The Principal Sessions [Judge' ][Medak ]1t -SanSlr:gdyz. ih. lrai"ill [First ][Class ][Malistrate' ][at ][Zaheerabad]5. ih" [supetintendent, ][District ][Jail ][Sanqaredoy']z. ih. lrai"ill [First ][Class ][Malistrate' ][at ][Zaheerabad]5. ih" [supetintendent, ][District ][Jail ][Sanqaredoy']

4. The Sub-lnspector of Police, Zaheerabad Police Station, Zaheerabad.5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana atHyderabad. (OUT)5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana atHyderabad. (OUT)6. One CC to Sri. C. Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI7. Two CD Copies7. Two CD Copies KAw \L

HIGH COURT

)

DATED:2911212023

----.-.:..^.

,,,.,:Iv| ')2 6 tl "Fitil ?rt+'i.l ,-'ii -t- ORDERCRLRC.No.1197 of 2010

THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DTSMISSED.

lo[c'f&[]Fr6ffN