Dismissed

Md. Abdul Gafoor v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC11 Dec 2009CRLRC/188/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision case challenging a conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death, the High Court rejected arguments regarding witness bias and lack of a test identification parade. The court held that direct witness testimony was sufficient and the lower courts did not err in assessing evidence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Md. Abdul Gafoor Vs State of A.P. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA

¶2

Crl.R.C.No. 188 of 2005

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 4.2.2005 on the file of court of Session, Sessions Division, Nellore whereby the order of conviction and sentence dated 16.7.2001 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, was confirmed.

¶5

2. The facts in brief are that on 9.7.1999 at about 2.30 a.m., the deceased Munnelli Harnath Babu was proceeding on his cycle on N.H.5 and when he reached Madras Bus stand in Nellore Town, the crime lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-796 driven by the revision petitioner-accused at high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from Vijayawada side and dashed against him. That as a result, the cyclist fell down on the road and that the left side wheel of the lorry ran over his head causing his instantaneous death. The South Traffic Police Station, Nellore, registered a case as Crime No.82 of 1999 against the revision petitioner- accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

¶6

3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. Whereas Ex.D.1, portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1, was marked on behalf of the defence.

¶7

4. That after conclusion of the trial and considering the evidence and other material brought on record by either side, the trial court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for seven months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for two months. However, the trial court finding him

¶8

not guilty for the offences under Section 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, acquitted him.

¶9

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned public prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶10

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that both the courts below failed to consider that PWs 1 and 3 were related to the deceased. PW.1 is none other than the brother of the deceased and PW.3 is brother-in-law. PW.1 testified that he and his deceased brother were proceeding on their bicycles at the relevant time; that his deceased brother was ahead of him; that when they reached Madras Bus stand, the crime lorry driven by the petitioner-accused in a rash and negligent manner came at high speed and dashed against his brother causing his instantaneous death. That the lorry did not stop there and that when he raised cries, the auto drivers who were present at that place stopped the lorry and he identified the accused. The evidence of PW.3 is only to the effect that PW.2 informed him about the manner of the accident and involvement of the crime lorry driven by the accused. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not acceptable since the court has to see the veracity of the evidence of the witnesses and not their relationship inter-se with the deceased.

¶11

7. The next contention on behalf of the revision petitioner is that no test identification parade was held to identify the accused. However, it is in the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 that soon after the accident they saw the accused and they spent some time together. Therefore, they could identify the accused in the court. It is settled law in such circumstances test identification parade need not be conducted. Moreover, Ex.P.9 containing signature also proves his identity. So far as the presence of PWs 1 and 2 at the place of the accident is concerned, it is a vegetable wholesale

¶12

market and it is stated to be open day and night. It is also in the evidence of witnesses that the lorries with loads of vegetables were parked for loading and unloading purpose. Therefore, the presence of PWs 1 and 2 there cannot be said to be not natural. A perusal of evidence of PW.2 reveals that he turned hostile, though, he was examined as an eye witness to the accident. However, his evidence also reveals that he informed PW.3 being an eye witness to the accident, to that extent, it seems, the trial court has accepted his testimony. Moreover, the evidence of the direct witnesses to the accident viz., PWs 1 and 3 was not impeached in their cross-examination. As such, both the courts below assessed the same in proper perspective. Ex.D.1, a portion of 161 statement of PW1, however, cannot be said to be a major contradiction to impeach his evidence. That in any case the said exhibit would not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner.

¶13

8. In the circumstances, both the courts below evaluated the evidence and other material on record in accordance with law and reached logical conclusion that the accused was guilty of offence under Section 304-A IPC only and as such the same does not, in any way, warrant, interference from this revisional court.

¶14

9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶15

_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 11-12-2009 Stp

Md. Abdul Gafoor v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abdul Gafoor v. State of A.P.

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

Tandra Anjaneyulu, A1 Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Shaik Abbu Baker Siddik Vs The State of A.P. through Sub Inspector of Police

V.Ravi Kumar, Vs State of A.P.

Vurlaka Rambabu, Vs The State of a.P., through Sub-Inspector of Police

Ravula Malleswara Rao. (a 1) Vs The State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Jakku Srinivas Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor