Telangana High Court
CRLRC/28/2005 of Venkateti Yugandhar Vs State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO.NALLA Crl. R.C.No. 28 of 2005. JUDGEMENT: This criminal revision case is filed against the Judgment dt. 4.1.2005 in Crl. A.No. 131 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Karimagar reduced the rigorous imprisonment of
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO.NALLA
Crl. R.C.No. 28 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.
JUDGEMENT:
This criminal revision case is filed against the Judgment dt.4.1.2005 in Crl. A.No. 131 of 2001 on the file of the SessionsJudge, Karimnagar whereby the learned Sessions Judge,Karimagar reduced the rigorous imprisonment of two years to sixmonths while confirming the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- indefault to suffer SI for three months imposed against the revisionpetitioner in C.C.No. 66 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Sircilla for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.
The case of the prosecution is that on 31.1.1999 at about11.20 p.m.the petitioner/accused drove the Auto bearing No. AP 15U 4575 in rash and negligent manner at high speed and gave dashto a pole situated by the side of the road near Ragudu village busstand and due to the hit, the inmates of the auto sustained simpleand grievous injuries and one of the inmates by name Jani Miyadied in the hospital while undergoing treatment. Based on thecomplaint lodged by Md Rafiq, one of the passengers of the Auto, a case in Cr.No. 17 of 1999 under Section 304-A IPC wasregistered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet waslaid against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Sircilla which was numbered as C.C.No. 66 of 1999.
Before the trial court, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 7and got marked Exs:P.1 to P.4. No evidence was adduced onbehalf of the petitioner/accused.
The trial court after appreciating the evidence, both oral anddocumentary, found the petitioner/accused guilty of the offenceunder Section 304-A IPC and convicted him for the said offence under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergorigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months,by the Judgement dt. 18.10.2001.
Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the petitioner/accusedfiled Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2001 before the Sessions Judge,Karimnagar who by the Judgment dt. 4.1.2005 dismissed theappeal but reduced the Rigorous imprisonment of two years to sixmonths while maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- indefault to suffer SI for three months. Challenging the saidJudgment, the present criminal revision case is filed by thepetitioner/accused.
Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner andthe learned Public Prosecutor.
It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner thatboth the courts below failed to consider the fact that theinvestigating officer was not examined and the non-examination ofthe investigating officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It isfurther contended that Pws 1 to 3 are interested witnesses sincethey were also travelling in the crime vehicle and they alsosustained injuries in the alleged accident and that the otherwitnesses i.e. Pws 4 to 7 are the official witnesses and theirevidence neither proves or disproves the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that the accident occurred at about 11.30p.m. on 31.1.1999 and there were no independent eye witnesses tothe accident and the law was set into motion by lodging thecomplaint on the next day i.e. on 1.2.1999 by Pw.1 and in thecircumstances finding the petitioner/accused guilty of the offenceunder Section 304-A IPC by the learned Magistrate basing on theevidence of Pws 1 to 3 and confirming the same by the learnedSessions Judge is erroneous and the petitioner/accused is entitled to be acquitted of the said offence.
to be acquitted of the said offence.
I have perused the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 who are theinjured in the alleged accident. All Pws 1 to 3 have identified thepetitioner/accused to be driver of the Auto on the date of theaccident and they categorically stated that the accident was due tothe rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question and theyclearly stated the manner in which the accident took place. Theevidence of Pws 1 to 3 is convincing and trustworthy. Nothingwas elicited in the cross examination of Pws 1 to 3 to disbelievetheir version regarding the accident. Since there are nocontradictions in the evidence of Pws 1 to 3, the non-examinationof the investigating officer is not fatal to the case of theprosecution. Pws 1 to 3 cannot be said to be interested witnessessince no animosity was attributed to them to speak falsehoodagainst the petitioner/accused. The conclusion reached by thelearned Magistrate while finding the petitioner/accused guilty of theoffence under Section 304-A IPC is based on the appreciation ofthe evidence on record and confirming the same by the learnedSessions Judge, Karimnagar cannot be said to be erroneous. Therefore, this court is of the view that both the courts below havenot committed any irregularity much less any illegality whilecoming to their respective conclusions warranting interferencefrom this revisional court.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
________________________
B.N.RAO NALLA.J
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 28 OF 2005.
DATED 31.12.2009.