Partly allowed

Peddina Venkata Rao , v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Feb 2020CRLRC/662/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death. Court quashed one of seven cross-examination witnesses and reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment to time already undergone, enhancing the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 2,000, payable within eight weeks, failing which simple imprisonment for three months.

Peddina Venkata Rao , Vs the State of a.P., Rep… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No. 662 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

As there was no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner on 27.01.2020, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal. Even on that day, there was no representation, as such, the matter was adjourned to today under the same caption. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, heard Public Prosecutor, perused the record and passed the following order.

¶5

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court in C.C. No. 563 of 2003, dated 24.01.2005, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, on 01.05.2007.

¶6

1. The facts, in issue, are as under:

¶7

i. The accused was working as driver in APSRTC, Palakonda Depot of Srikakulam district. On the date of incident, i.e., 07.08.2003, he was the driver of a bus bearing registration no. AP 10 Z 9851. When the bus reached near Port Golden Jubilee Hospital, Visakhapatnam, the accused drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased [Changala Lakshmi] by hitting her with the left front portion of the bus

¶8

¶9

As a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and the left rear wheel of the bus ran over the head of the deceased resulting in instantaneous death. The accused also dashed a stationary auto bearing no. AP 31 W 5714 of LW1 and caused damage to the auto. He left the bus at the stop ran away.

¶10

ii. Basing on a report, a case in Crime No. 56 of 2003 came to be registered under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 563 of 2003 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

¶11

On appearance of the Accused, copies of all the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished. He was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and the accusations referred to above were read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶12

To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. After completing the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which, he denied, but, however did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his plea.

¶13

Relying upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3, who were the eye witnesses, coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.P6

¶14

¶15

[photographs] and Ex.P8 [rough sketch], the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one [01] month, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. Challenging the same, the present Revision came to be filed.

¶16

The Counsel for the Revision Petitioner in the grounds of revision stated that, there is no evidence on record to show that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. It is further pleaded that, when the crime vehicle hit the deceased from behind, the question of PW1 or PW2 or PW3 witnessing the driver would not arise, more so, when the crime vehicle was stopped by the Petitioner at a distance. It is further stated that, there was no possibility of the Petitioner driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at that time, having regard to the fact that, the said place is a busy locality. He would further plead that PW1 to PW3 are planted witnesses and their evidence cannot be accepted. He further contends that, the question of damage to the auto does not arise having regard to the manner in which the incident took place. Hence, he pleads that the conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate court confirming the findings of the trial court is improper and incorrect.

¶17

The same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that, both the courts have concurrently held that the

¶18

¶19

Petitioner drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and as such, the same warrants no interference.

¶20

The evidence establishes that the crime vehicle hit the deceased from behind. It also establishes that the crime vehicle ran over the deceased and stopped at a distance.

¶21

PW1 in his evidence stated that, he is the owner of the auto. The presence of the auto at the scene stands established through Ex.P6- the photographs showing the auto, which was also depicted in rough sketch Ex.P8. The evidence of PW1 reveals that he parked his auto at road margin and went for urinal and while he was coming back, he saw the bus hitting the deceased as well as auto. He also stated that, accused was the driver of the bus. The fact that the bus hit the auto stands established for the reason that the auto had deep dents, which is clearly visible from the photographs taken and from the evidence of panch witnesses at the scene of offence.

¶22

PW6- the Motor Vehicle Inspector opined that, the accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in the accident.

¶23

One of the argument that was advanced here is that, since PW1 stopped the vehicle on road margin and went for urinal, he could not have witnessed the incident, but, the evidence on record show that, after passing of urine, he turned back and then saw the incident. Therefore, the argument that PW1 could not have seen

¶24

¶25

the incident as he was not present at the scene cannot be accepted.

¶26

PW2 and PW3 are the petty businessmen who were present at the scene of offence. Both of them in their evidence categorically deposed about the manner in which the accident took place. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. There is no reason for these two witnesses to speak false against the accused. Further, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 show that left front portion of the bus hit the deceased, as a result of which she fell down on the road and the bus ran over her. After hitting, the accused did not stop the bus but he proceeded further and hit an auto parked on the road side margin causing damage. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 not only corroborates with each other but also from the rough sketch of the scene of offence and photographs taken at the scene i.e. Ex.P6. Hence, the conviction imposed by both the court warrants no interference.

¶27

Having regard to the fact that the incident took place in the year 2003; that the accused was in jail for a period of 10 days and since he was 54 years at the time of incident, this court is of the opinion that, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that of period already undergone while enhancing the fine imposed by the Trial court from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/-. The fine amount shall paid within eight [08] weeks from the date of receipt of the copy, in default of payment of fine,

¶28

¶29

the Petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three [03] months.

¶30

With the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of .

¶31

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶32

JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶33

Date: 14.02.2020 SM.

¶34

¶35

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶36

Criminal Revision Case No. 662 of 2007

¶37

Date: 14.02.2020

¶38

SM.

Peddina Venkata Rao , v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peddina Venkata Rao , v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Junaid Vs State of Ap

V. Maheswari, Vs Vanam Gopal and 3 Others

Abdul Mannan Vs Asif Ali

Machani Jagadeesh, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and Another

Smt. B.Maheswari Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Vallam Muni Prabhakar and Another, Vs the Stte of a.P., Rpe by Its Pubic Prosecutor