Dismissed

Gorantla Bhaskara Rao, v. The State of a.P., through Si of Police, P.S. Narsaraopet

Telangana HC16 Feb 2012CRLRC/1653/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Confirmed conviction for causing death by rash and negligent act. Held non-examination of investigating officer and Motor Vehicles Inspector did not cause prejudice. Reduced substantive sentence from one year to six months simple imprisonment considering age and pendency duration.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced from one year to six months simple imprisonment; fine maintained.

Gorantla Bhaskara Rao, Vs The State of a.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1653 of 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner (accused) was tried on a charge under Section 304-A IPC (causing death by a rash or negligent act) in C.C.No.248 of 2000 in the Court of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet (trial court). After considering the evidence, the trial court by its judgment dated 11^th July 2002 convicted him of the said charge and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and also a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause prison sentence of two months for non-payment of fine. The petitioner’s appeal i.e. Crl.A.No.282 of 2002, questioning the above judgment of the trial court was dismissed by the court of VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur (appellate court) by its judgment dated 23^rd September 2004. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed this revision.

¶5

2. The substance of the accusation brought against the accused is that on 26^th March 2000 at about 1.15 pm at a place called Janda Chetti Veedhi in Narasaraopet Town, he drove a bus bearing No.AP 10Z 2104 belonging to the Narasaraopet depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in a rash or negligent manner and hit a pedestrian by name Chilaka Koteswar Rao (deceased) and caused his death and therefore he is guilty of the aforesaid charge. The case is a police case. The accused admittedly is an employee of Narasaraopet depot of APSRTC and at the time of accident/incident, the bus was plying between Narasaraopet and Guntur.

¶6

3. P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 were examined as eye-witnesses to the

¶7

accident. They spoke about the involvement of the bus of the accused and the death of the deceased in the present accident. P.W.1 who is the conductor of the bus also identified the accused as the driver of the bus. The evidence of P.W.4 the Civil Assistant Surgeon shows that he conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased and gave Ex.P.3 post-mortem report and that the deceased died of injuries suffered in the accident. Thus the prosecution plea that the accused was the driver of the bus in question, the bus has hit the deceased resulting in his death stands proved from the above evidence as held by both the courts below and there is no reason to disturb that conclusion.

¶8

4. Sri Rama Sarma, the learned counsel for the accused, however, firstly contended that the evidence on record does not disclose any rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. He secondly pointed out that the investigating officer, and the Motor Vehicles Inspector who inspected the bus were not examined as witnesses and that has resulted in prejudice to the accused. He says that both the courts below ignored the above two circumstances which are borne out by record and therefore the findings of the trial court which were confirmed by the appellate court are against the evidence and as that is a ground for interference in a revision, the conviction should be set aside.

¶9

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated by the courts below. He also pointed out that having regard to the defence of the accused found from the crossexamination of the witnesses and also the plea taken by him which is one of total denial in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the non-examination of the aforesaid two officials cannot be said to

¶10

have resulted in any prejudice to him and consequently there are no grounds to interfere in the matter.

¶11

6. In the light of the above contentions, it has now to be seen whether the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the accused drove the bus rashly or negligently and caused the death of the deceased as that is necessary to sustain the conviction. It is true that the deposition of P.W.1 would show that he was inside the bus and did not see how the accident occurred and therefore as contended by the defence, he cannot be treated as an eyewitness regarding the cause of accident. Then coming to P.W.2 Syed Wahab he says that he is a practising advocate of Chilakaluripet while P.W.3 Mohd.Khaleel says that he is an employee of a motor transport agency situated near the place of accident. Both of them spoke about the cause of accident.

¶12

7. The version of P.W.2 would show that he was proceeding at the place of accident along with P.W.5 Syed Abdul Bari and P.W.3 Mohd. Khaleel to attend a marriage and when they reached the place of accident, the bus in question came behind them and while overtaking the marriage procession hit or dashed the deceased and he fell down on the road in between the front and back portions of the bus and the rear tyres of the bus on the left side ran over the deceased resulting in his death. Even P.W.5 stated in his evidence that the bus came and hit the deceased from behind. The version of P.W.3 is that at the time of accident, he was sitting in his shop/agency and the bus came in a high speed and hit the deceased and he fell underneath the tyres of the bus. He of-course stated that he does not know P.W.2 indicating that his version is contrary to the version of P.W.3 regarding their acquaintance. This discrepancy is however not material and his

¶13

evidence would also show that the bus came in speed and hit the deceased.

¶14

8. What should be noted is that though P.W.2 who is an advocate and P.W.3 did not mention the words “rashness or negligence”, their version would show that the bus hit the deceased while overtaking the marriage procession. Ofcourse P.W.2 stated that he was also going to attend marriage and he was in the procession in the front side. The above version of P.W.2 which is that the bus has hit the deceased while overtaking the marriage procession clearly shows rash driving on the part of the accused as he was driving the bus through a busy street and while driving the bus through such a street he should have been more careful to see that the bus does not hit any pedestrian in the process. It should thus be noted that though P.Ws.2 and 3 did not use the words “rashness or negligence” in their evidence, their version about the method and the manner in which accident occurred would show rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, in my opinion, is sufficient to sustain the conviction as held by the appellate court.

¶15

9. One aspect which was argued by Sri Rama Sarma was that the version of P.W.2 would show that the deceased was hit by the middle portion of the bus on its left side and this itself may suggests that the accused was not negligent as he already took front portion of the bus crossing the marriage procession crowd suggesting that once the front portion of the bus enters a way the driver of the bus need not bother about the pedestrians on the sides of the bus at such a place. There is no force in this contention. It should be noted that when the driver of the bus which is a heavy vehicle was negotiating it through a busy street,

¶16

he has to be careful to see that the bus does not hit any pedestrian walking on its sides also. A perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3 would show that nothing was elicited from them to conclude that the deceased himself had negligently hit the bus and in the absence of such circumstances and in the face of the above evidence, the contention of Sri Rama Sarma cannot be accepted.

¶17

10. Another aspect pointed out on behalf of the accused was that the road was under repair and also about its dimensions which could show that the accused cannot be said to be at fault. P.W.2 expressed ignorance about the repairs to the road and P.W.3 whose presence at his shop or agency denied this aspect. Even then nothing is elicited from P.Ws.2 and 3 as to how repairs to the road at the place of accident can be a plus point for the accused. With regard to the dimensions of the road also nothing is elicited from the witnesses to show as to how the accused cannot be said to be at fault. Thus on the evidence it can be said that the prosecution is able to prove that the accused drove the bus rashly and the findings of the courts below on this aspect cannot also be disturbed.

¶18

11. Now turning to the contention of the petitioner’s counsel about non-examination of the investigating officer and the Motor Vehicles Inspector, it may be noted that a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 would show that no doubtful aspects were elicited from them. In fact no material contradictions from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 were elicited when compared with their versions before police in order to show that prosecution ought to have examined the investigating officer to clarify the same or even to speak about place of occurrence. Nothing is also shown as to

¶19

how the non-examination of investigating officer has resulted in any prejudice to the accused. It may be noted that nonexamination of the investigating officer will become fatal for the prosecution only in case the accused is able to establish or even preponderantly show that it has resulted in prejudice to him in conducting his defence. That is not the case here. Hence, mere non-examination of the investigating officer i.e. the Sub-Inspector here cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the other evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

¶20

12. The same is the position even with regard to nonexamination of the Motor Vehicles Inspector who is said to have inspected the bus after the accident to find out whether there was any fault or defect in it. Not even a single suggestion, was made to P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 to show that the bus had any mechanical defect either in its brakes or otherwise to suggest that the accident occurred because of the fault in the bus which was beyond the control of the accused though he was careful in driving it. His plea in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination was also one of total denial and he did not take any defence with regard to the condition of the bus. It is also not his case that motor vehicles inspector gave any report which supports his defence. That being the situation, it follows that non-examination of the Motor Vehicles Inspector cannot also be a ground to record an acquittal.

¶21

13. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused under Section 304-A IPC is, for the aforesaid reasons, confirmed. Then coming to sentences, it may be noted, in the charge sheet which is of the year 2000 the age of the accused is shown as 53 years. As on today more than 10 years have elapsed and the accused now can be said to be around 63 years old and he must have been retired

¶22

from service also. He has already undergone the agony of these criminal proceedings for more than 10 years. In the circumstances, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to 6 months simple imprisonment while maintaining the fine awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.

¶23

14. With the above modification in the sentences, this revision is dismissed. The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentences as ordered now giving the benefit of set off for the accused, if he is entitled to the same regarding sentence of imprisonment.

¶24

______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶25

16^th February, 2011 Tjmr

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶27

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1653 OF 2004

¶28

DATE: .02.2012

Gorantla Bhaskara Rao, v. The State of a.P., through Si of Police, P.S. Narsaraopet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorantla Bhaskara Rao, v. The State of a.P., through Si of Police, P.S. Narsaraopet

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

Bathala Venkata Sivudu, Vs Gunireddy Srinivasulu Reddy

Rasheed Ahmed Junaid Vs Bombay Mercantile Co.Op Bank Ltd.

Gangarapu Venkata Ramana Vs The Samba Murthy s/o chandrapppa Naidu

V.Marthand Goud Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by Public Prosecutor

P. Uma Maheswar, Vs State, through Govt. of India

Kotipalli Mallikarjuna Rao Vs The State Rep.by its Public Prosecutor