Dismissed

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

Telangana HC11 Dec 2009CRLRC/278/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against conviction for causing death by negligence, the court upheld the conviction, rejecting the defense that the victim fell without being hit. Eyewitness evidence and post-mortem findings confirmed the accident, and the driver's failure to stop or render aid reinforced guilt. The criminal revision case was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed as devoid of merit; conviction and sentence under Section 304-A IPC were upheld.

Vurlaka Rambabu, Vs The State of a.P., through… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

Crl.R.C.No.278 of 2005

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 17.02.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.143 of 1999 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam whereby the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda in C.C.No.35 of 1997, was confirmed.

¶5

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision are as follows:

¶6

The accused is the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9Z 8663 and on 15.07.1997 at about 9.30 p.m., the bus was plying between Palakonda and Pathapatnam and when the deceased Karnam Adibabu was coming on his cycle and when the bus came near the MRO office, came to the extreme right side and hit the deceased cyclist and the bus went away without stopping and the cyclist died on the spot. One

¶7

K. Rajarao, who was near the scene of offence, clearly observed the incident and gave a complaint to the police.

¶8

The police registered a case in Crime No.71 of 1997 and investigated the matter. The investigation revealed that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused.

¶9

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and during the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. On behalf of accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked.

¶10

4. After considering the entire material both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and therefore, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl. Appeal No.143 of 1999 before the court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam. The learned Sessions Judge, after perusal of the entire material, dismissed the said appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, through judgment dated 17.02.2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

¶11

5. Heard both sides.

¶12

6. It is in the evidence of PW.1 that at the relevant time he was returning home after witnessing a film show and he happened to be the eye witness to the accident. That, it was at that time, the RTC crime bus came from Palakonda side proceeding towards Kotturu dashed against the cyclist coming from opposite direction and the bus did not stop there and that he could see the number plate of the bus and noted it down in the illumination of the light there and in turn informed the same to the Police. That being the testimony of PW.1, the defence story that the deceased himself lost balance of the cycle

¶13

and fell down and died, cannot be accepted. It is such a ghastly accident which caused the fracture of the skull and the brain matter gushed out and the same is evident from Ex.P.4 post mortem certificate. The evidence of PW.1 corroborated by the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 who were travelling in the crime bus at the time of the accident that though they informed the driver that a person being hit by the bus, he did not the stop the bus and brushed their objections aside saying vehicle fell in a pit and nothing to be worried. The first appellate court even observed that the petitioner- accused was not only guilty of not stopping the vehicle and reporting the matter to police but he is also guilty of not seeing whether the injured required any first aid. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the bus and the cycle did not suffer any damage and that there was no positive evidence that the bus in fact hit the cyclist, cannot be accepted.

¶14

7. In the circumstances, the revision petition fails as is devoid of merit.

¶15

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

¶16

_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J

¶17

11-12-2009 Stp

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

Md. Abdul Gafoor Vs State of A.P.

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