Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 922 (AP)

Jilukara Sailu v. State

2014-07-23

S.RAVI KUMAR

body2014
ORDER S. Ravi Kumar, J. 1. This revision is preferred against judgment dated 14.3.2007 in Crl. A No. 79/2006 on the file I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar whereunder judgment dated 16.5.2006 in CC No. 736/2004 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar was modified to the extent of sentence, but confirmed the conviction. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows: Sub-Inspector of Police, L.M.D. Colony Police Station filed charge-sheet against the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC alleging that on 20.3.2004, at about 4.20 p.m., the deceased along with his mother-PW 1 went to Renikunta Village and while they were returning from the field and while they were crossing the road, the accused drove lorry bearing No. A.P. 10.V.4447 coming from Hyderabad and proceeding towards Karimnagar in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased due to which, he fell down and sustained fatal injury and died on the spot. On the report of PW 1, police investigated into and filed charge-sheet against the revision petitioner. On these, allegations, trial Court examined nine witnesses and marked seven documents on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-Aand sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Karimnagar and I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar while confirming the conviction reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months while confirming the fine amount of Rs. 3,000/-. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that except the interested testimony of PW 1, there is no other evidence to support the prosecution case and that deceased suddenly crossed the road and it is due to the negligence of PW 1 and that there is no negligence on the part of accused. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that except the interested testimony of PW 1, there is no other evidence to support the prosecution case and that deceased suddenly crossed the road and it is due to the negligence of PW 1 and that there is no negligence on the part of accused. He further submitted that the accident was on a National Highway and there is equal responsibility on the pedestrians, while crossing the road and they have to verify the incoming vehicles and without observing the same deceased, suddenly crossed and that there is no negligence on the part of revision petitioner. He submitted that both the Courts have committed error in convicting the revision petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings. He submitted that though it is contended that it was sudden cross, there was no suggestion to PW 1 and the same is also observed by the trial Court. He submitted that both the Courts have rightly convicted the accused. 4-A. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct? 5. Point:--According to prosecution, the incident was on 20.3.2004 and the deceased died on the spot. Out of nine witnesses examined, PWs. 1 and 3 are the main material witnesses. PW 1 is mother of the deceased and she supported the contents of her report, which is registered as F.I.R. PW 3 is an independent witness and she deposed that on the date of incident, while deceased along with PW 1 were crossing the road, the accused drove his lorry bearing No. AP. 10.V.4447 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased boy due to which the boy died on the spot. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that PW 3 has got a house on road side of Rajiv Rahadhari and at the time of accident, she was standing near her house and that the accident took place at a distance of 10 yards from her house. There is another eye-witness PW 6 who also supported the version of PWs. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that PW 3 has got a house on road side of Rajiv Rahadhari and at the time of accident, she was standing near her house and that the accident took place at a distance of 10 yards from her house. There is another eye-witness PW 6 who also supported the version of PWs. 1 and 3 and considering evidence of these three, which is supported and corroborated with the evidence of other circumstantial witnesses and official witnesses, trial Court held that there is rash and negligent act on the part of revision petitioner. I have perused evidence of all the prosecution witnesses. Their evidence is consistent and convincing as to the manner of accident and PWs. 1, 3 and 6 have clearly identified the accused in fact there is no dispute with regard to identity of the accused. Due to the rash and negligent act of accused, a small boy of five years old lost his life and when there is rash and negligent act on the part of accused, the contention that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased or PW 1 cannot be accepted, without any material evidence. The plea of the accused remained as a plea as he has not examined any witnesses to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of either deceased or PW 1. Mere putting suggestions to the prosecution witnesses is not sufficient and they have to be substantiated with cogent and convincing evidence. The learned Advocate for petitioner cited a ruling of this Court in Kutcharlapati Krishnam Raju v. State of A.P., 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 241 (AP), in support of his argument, but that decision is not applicable to the case on hand. In that case to avoid a major accident, the accused therein had committed a minor accident and by invoking exception under Section 81 of IPC, this Court observed that there is error of judgment and applying it, the accused therein was acquitted. But here, there is no plea of such error of judgment or to avoid a major accident, the accused has committed this accident. 6. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, therefore, revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 7. But here, there is no plea of such error of judgment or to avoid a major accident, the accused has committed this accident. 6. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, therefore, revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 7. Lastly, Advocate for petitioner submitted that some lenient view may be taken in respect of sentence. The accused was sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment by the trial Court and it was reduced to six months imprisonment by the appellate Court. From the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that already a lenient view was taken by the appellate Court, therefore, there are no grounds to take any further lenient view. 8. Accordingly, criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merits. 9. The trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case, shall stand dismissed.