Telangana High Court
CRLRC/82/2005 of Shaik Vali Vs The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 25.1.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2003 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge,(FTC) Guntur, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence passed
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA
Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgmentdated 25.1.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2003 on the file of VIIAdditional Sessions Judge,(FTC) Guntur, whereby and whereunderthe conviction and sentence passed against the accused by theSpecial Mobile Magistrate, Guntur by judgment dated 16.06.2003 inC.C.No.309 of 2001, was confirmed.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.12.2001 at about 7.00a.m. the petitioner-accused drove the lorry bearing No. 77/6260 in arash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against cyclistby name Syed Vali causing fracture injures, who later succumbed toinjuries on 20.12.2001 while undergoing treatment in GG Hospital,Guntur.
3. In support of his case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 andgot marked Exs.P.1 to P.7, whereas no witnesses were examined andno documents were marked on behalf of the defence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted thataccording to prosecution, PWs 1 and 3 were eye witnesses to theaccident, and that the motor vehicle accidents need not always bedeemed to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. It can bedue to mechanical defects in the vehicle. He sought indulgence of thiscourt to proceed on similar lines. He found fault with the trial court inconvicting the accused for the offence under Section 304 A IPC, and for confirming the same by the first appellate court.
5. However, this court is unable to accept the contention of thelearned counsel for the petitioner as the evidence of PWs 1 and 3who are examined as direct eye witnesses, according to whom, theaccident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of thepetitioner-accused at the relevant point of time.
6. He further contended that the Investigating Officer whoinvestigated the case, and the Doctor who treated the deceased for theinjuries at the initial stages, were not examined by the prosecution andthe same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
7. This court is of the view that non-examination of the saidwitnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in view of directevidence of PWs 1 and 3- eye witnesses to the accident.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the prosecution casestating that both the courts below came to their respective conclusionsafter considering the evidence both oral and documentary and othermaterial on record. Therefore, the finding of the first appellate courtdoes not in any way warrant interference by this court.
9. In the above circumstances, this court is of the view that therevision petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
_______________
B.N.RAO NALLA,J
-12-2009
Stp