CRLRC/715/2014 of K.PRABHAKARAN, TAMILNADU STATE., Vs STATE OF AP., REP. PP. HYD., on 1 April 2026

1. K.PRABHAKARAN, TAMILNADU STATE.,, S/O. P.K.KUPPUSWAMY, WORKING AS DRIVER IN TAMILNADU STC, R/O. D.NO. 13-A, POONTHOTTAM, ANNANAGAR, KRISHNAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE.

...PETITIONER AND

1. STATE OF AP REP PP HYD, rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto present this memorandum of Crl.Rc. to this Hon'ble Court against the judgment dated 28- 03-2014 in Crl.A.No. 51 of 2011 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor confirming the judgment dated 21-01-2013 passed in C.C.No. 191 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuppam. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 1137 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing the certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No. 191 of 2009 on the file of the JFCM, Kuppam, dated 21-01-2013 at the interest of justice.

IA NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 1164 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment dated 21.01.2013 passed in CC.No.191/2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Class Magistrate, Kuppam as confirmed vide Judgment dated 28.03.2014 in Crl.A.No.51/2011 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor by enlarging the petitioner on bail, pending disposal fo the above Crl.RC Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 715/2014 The Court made the following:

The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learnedCourt below concurrently against present petitioner for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for brevity I.P.C). Case of prosecution:

2. The brief fact of the prosecution is that on 07.08.2009 petitioner being a driver of Tamilnadu State Government Bus bearing No.TN29N1658 at about 4.00 pm, while proceeding from Kuppam to Krishnagiri and reached near Mani Toddy shop at MallanuruKottalu, on Kuppam-Krishnagiri road, drove the same in rash and negligent matter and hit a five year old boy from behind while he was following his parents in Sri Subrahmanyam Swamy Temple at Mallanuru Kottalu, resulting instantaneous death. Charge was framed against the petitioner under section 304-A of I.P.C. Prosecution has adduced as many as eight witnesses and exhibited some documents. Learned Trial Court after considering documentary evidences and oral evidences from prosecution witnesses, convicted petitioner, finding him guilty for offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred appeal being C.A.No.551 of 2013. Learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties and after scanning evidences, dismissed the appeal by confirming order of conviction and sentence. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case. Submission of petitioner:

3. Sri N.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy representing Indus Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court is perverse, the order of conviction and sentence is illegal and improper.

4. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are not corroborating to each other. There are no eye witnesses to see the accident. He further submits that the entire factssuggests that there are huge mob proceeding to the temple to offer their poojas. The parents of the deceased were also in the prosecution. Deceased was 5 years old boy, he was following his parents but was not along with his parents. The child was proved to be unattended, the mob was not controlled, they were running, dancing, singing with drums and other instruments and proceeded to the temple. Thus, if the accident happened, there is no negligence on part of the petitioner being driver of the vehicle. He further submits that PW.1 and PW.2, being the parents of the deceased, stated before the Court that they were on either side of the road, thereby leaving the child unattended. He further submits that there was a procession to the temple, while people singing and beating drums, and in that situation it was not possible for the driver to notice the child at the spot. He further submits that the uncontrolled mob perhaps threw the child in front of the bus, thereby causing the accident. He further submits that alleged rash and negligent driving of driver was not proved. Hence, conviction and sentence against the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

5. During argument, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince this court by citing several recording of depositions by the learned Trial Court. He further submits that alleged eye witnesses ie., PW.5 and PW.6 were said to be on opposite of the road, there are huge mob over the road.So, it is not possible for PW.5 and PW.6 to see the accident. He further submits that PW.1 being mother of the deceased child neglected and abandoned the child in the mob and that the boy tried to cross the road and when somebody thrown him on the road, he fell down and accident happened. He further submits that from therough sketch of Investigating Officer, it would be revealed that the accident happened at the middle of the road and other eye witnesses said thatpetitioner being driver of the offending bushit the boy on the left side of the vehicle. Submission of the State:

6. Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objections and submits that to prove this case, the prosecution has examined asmany as eight witnesses among them PW.1 and PW.2 are the parents of deceased. PW.3 and PW.4 are accompanied persons. PW.5 and PW.6 are eyewitnesses. No evidence was placed by the defence side. Moreover, during the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he kept silent. It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, by which the accident was caused; thereby, the order of conviction and sentence is justified.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused impugned order of Judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court.

8. From the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, their deceased boy, died by rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. PW.3 and PW.4 supported the prosecution case and stated that bus ran over the boy on the middle of the road and also denied suggestion that boy was thrown and fell on the road. PW.5 and PW.6 are eye witnesses who had their existing hotel near and around the crime scene and had seen that petitioner being driver of the bus had committed accident and he was driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. PW.5 and PW.6 who are natural eye witnesses, who reasonably present there, as they had respective shops nearby, thus their testimony cannot be disbelieve. Moreover, after scanning the depositions of PW.5 and PW.6, it appears that their testimony was not shaken during cross- examination.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the situation when a huge mob were singing playing drums and proceeding to offer pooja, the road was heavy busy, at that time it was not possible for driver of bus to take proper caution in running passenger bus. In admitting the fact as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, being a driver of Government Bus must have taken proper care or to drive the vehicle or to stop the vehicle, so that the procession may pass over. Admittedly, a huge mob was there over road. Thus, the driver should have take so caution. that no one can run over. In this case, boy of 5 years old was ran over, who was admittedly, at that time accompanied mob. One cannot stop persons for offering pooja, there are many persons to offer pooja, they are dedicated and spiritually guided to the lord to offer their pooja. That’s why they were unaware regarding the circumstances, it was disbelieve plea that if they are proceeding over a road to offer pooja, the road proceeding vehicles should be take proper caution so that the procession may pass over. In this case, the responsibility was upon the driver of the vehicle to run the vehicle so cautiously that any accident may be avoided. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited some Judgments in support of their contention that the driver/petitioner was not negligent.

10. In a case of Syed Akbar V.Karnataka, 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has envisages that “the the appellant had caused the death of the child by negligent or rash and driving against the appellant, the highest that could be said was that a mis judgment on his part too silent to be branded as culpable negligence, could well account for the accident resulting in the death of the child’.

1 (1980) 1 SCC 30

11. In that case, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, during examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, the driver has stated before the Court that bus was driving very slowly, suddenly a child came infront of the bus in a small distance. In that situation, it was extremely difficult to avoid the accident, thereby the accident was caused.

12. In a case of Mahadeo Hari Lokre V. State of Maharastara 2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has envisages in para No.4 that if a person suddenly crosses the road the bus driver, however slowly he may be driving, may not be in a position to avoid the accident. The fact is also distinguished to the present fact situation.

13. In a case of Krishna Bahadur Chetri V. State of Assam3, the Hon’ble Gowhathi High Court is of view that the accident happened in a national highway, the national highway is meant to run speedy vehicles and thus evidence before the learned Gowhathi High Court, the bus was running at speed of 20-25 miles per hour.

15. In this present case, there is no evidence regarding speed of the bus rather PW.5 and PW.6 has stated present petitioner was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner, thereby facts distinguishable.

16. This court in Markapudi Krishnarao V. State of Andhra Pradesh4 it was evident before this court in the cited case, that PW.6 has specifically 2 1972 CRL.L.J.49 SC (from Bombay) 3 1979 CRL.L.J.1258 Gauhathi High Court 4 2006 (1) ALT (Crl) 73

stated that accident occurred due to fault of the deceased and the evidence of PW.6 and PW.1 to PW.3 are contradictory. On the ground, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the cited Criminal Revision Case has set aside conviction

17. On the basis of discussion made above, it appears order of conviction and sentence which was set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as citation of this court, is completely different to the facts of the present case. Thus, there are not applicable in this case.

18. It appears that the learned Appellate Court in passing order as carefully scanned the evidences on record and judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court not illegal or perverse. I find justification hold that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner which causes the death of a boy is aged about 5 years. Thereby, impugned order confirming the sentence of petitioner requires no interference. Accordingly, order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court is affirmed.

19. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is 66 years old. The petitioner being the accused is dealing with the criminal trial since the year 2009, now more than 20 years is already elapsed. The petitioner is very old age, at that time, it is not possible for him to undergo imprisonment of any description.

20. Considering the same, order of imprisonment of the present petitioner is converted to fine of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner is directed to deposit the fine before learned Trial within six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this

Order.

. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:02.04.2026 SSA