Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 652 (AP)

K. Dhananjaya Rao v. State Of A. P.

2003-04-30

S.R.K.PRASAD

body2003
S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment in Criminal appeal No. 140 of 1997 rendered by the II additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast track Court) Sangareddy confirming the conviction recorded against the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and imposition of fine of rs. 2,000/- in default simple imprisonment for two months by the Principal Judicial first Class Magistrate at Sangareedy in CC no. 945 of 1995. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that on 9-11-1995 at 8. 00 p. m. , the accused drove the Suzuki motor Cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Narasimha Reddy the brother-in-law of the complainant going on his cycle, due to which he sustained injuries on his testicals, legs and abdomen and died at the Gandhi Hospital. It led to registering of a complaint under Section 304 A IPC and laying of the charge-sheet. After trial, the Magistrate recorded the finding of guilt under Section 304 A of IPC against the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the same, the matter has been carried in appeal before the Sessions court at Sangareddy. The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) sangareddy dismissed the Criminal Appeal no. 140 of 1997 preferred by the accused after confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Magistrate. Thereupon, the accused has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ( 3 ) IT is mainly contended by the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that involvement of the vehicle of the accused in the accident was not established beyond reasonable doubt as well as the accused was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner. It is also contended that there is possibility of pillion rider falling down by the dint of hit due to sudden application of breaks. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below need not be interfered with and accordingly the Criminal revision Case may be dismissed. It is also contended that there is possibility of pillion rider falling down by the dint of hit due to sudden application of breaks. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below need not be interfered with and accordingly the Criminal revision Case may be dismissed. ( 5 ) ADVERTING to the same, on a close scrutiny of the entire record, it is noticed by me that both the vehicles, which are involved in the accident, are not produced before the court. It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused rode the motorbike and caused the accident. He cannot ask the Court to presume about the riding of the motorbike when the motorbike and cycle were involved in the accident. In fact the scene of observation report indicates that they found the cycle at the scene. The prosecution cannot claim the benefit that arises for non- production of vehicles involved in the crime. The benefit if any arises due to non- production, the only missing link has to be given to the accused. This is an criminal case where both the Courts have forgotten their duty and they are only carried any by with the oral evidence and the original property is not forthcoming. Unless the property is produced no useful purpose would be served. In view of the grave defects found, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused, since the prosecution has miserably failed to show that the accused was riding the motor cycle and caused the accident by giving a dash to the cycle. Hence, this Court can give benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit him of the charge as the judgments rendered by both the Courts below are perverse and it led to miscarriage of justice. Before concluding, I state that the prosecution shall always produce the property involved in the accident. If they failed to produce the property involved in the incident or found at the scene, the accused is certainly entitled to get benefit of doubt and the prosecution itself has to blame for such sorry state of affairs. The Courts also must peruse the record properly before giving a finding of guilt in cases where properties are not produced before the Court and its involvement of are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts also must peruse the record properly before giving a finding of guilt in cases where properties are not produced before the Court and its involvement of are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mark a copy of the judgment to the DGP to give necessary instructions to all the Investigation Officers in the State to produce the properties found at the scene and also the vehicles involved in the accident, before the Court and not destroy them or return them without the orders of the Court. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal revision case is allowed.