Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 380 (AP)

Ramakuri Rama Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-04-07

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The Sub-Inspector of Police, Penamaluru Police Station, has filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section.304(a) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C'). 2. The Court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 304(a) I.P.C. and on conclusion of trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 304(a) I.P.C. and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 3. The facts of the case were that one Nagavarapu Suresh who is aged about four (4) years was playing in front of his house. at that time the accused being the driver of the auto bearing No.aP-16-X-8015, drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, while proceeding from auto Nagar to Ramavarappadu road and in Gowrisankarnagar, Kanuru Panchayat, hit the deceased boy and dragged him to a distance of about 10 feet. as a result, the deceased succumbed to injuries. 4. In the mean time, the LW2 Mendam Shyam, who was coming on the road on his bike raised shouts and got stopped the auto driver. Immediately, the complainant went there and noticed the deceased with bleeding injuries on head, face, shoulders. Immediately he shifted the deceased to Vijayawada Government Hospital. The Doctor tested him and declared dead. 5. On the complaint lodged by mother of the deceased, the Sub-Inspector of police registered complaint under Section 304-a I.P.C. and filed charge sheet in the Court. 6. The prosecution has examined as many as four (4) witnesses in order to establish the case. PW1 is M.Satyam Babu, who is eye witness to the incident who noticed the accident and raised shouts and stopped the auto, caught hold of the accused and handed over to the police. 7. as per the prosecution case, the deceased boy was playing on the road. PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW7 were eye witnesses, who stated about the accident that, the driver of the auto was proceeding with about fifteen (15) passengers. The auto hit the boy who was playing on the road and on noticing the same, the witnesses raised shouts but the auto went forward with same speed about 10 yards dragging the deceased boy. 8. The ocular evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW7 goes to show that the deceased died to the accident caused by auto, drove by the petitioner herein. 8. The ocular evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW7 goes to show that the deceased died to the accident caused by auto, drove by the petitioner herein. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased. In the trial Court, the petitioner has taken the defense that he is not the driver of the auto and he was falsely implicated and the accused was identified before the Court for the first time. Immediately, after the accident, the police did not conduct any test identification parade. No witness stated to the police the descriptive particulars of the accused and that they can identify the accused if shown to him. In such circumstances, without conducting test identification parade, the identity of the accused before the Court cannot be treated as proper identification. He relied on the judgment in 'K. Rajayya Vs. State of andhra Pradesh 2010 (2) aLD (Crl.) 376 (aP).' 9. Learned Judge after considering the evidence has convicted the accused and turned down the contention raised by the accused relying on the identification of the accused on the ground that PW2 followed the accused/driver and caught hold of him and handed him over to the police. Relying on the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW7, the trial Court has convicted the accused without any haste and the sole defense that was taken by the petitioner/accused is that he is not driver of the auto. 10. against such Calender and Judgment, the appellant/accused filed an appeal before Court of learned Session: Metropolitan Division: Vijayawada in Criminal appeal No.48 of 2012. 11. The lower appellate Court dismissed the criminal appeal confirming the conviction of the appellant vide judgment dated 07.01.2013 in Criminal appeal No.48 of 2012. 12. aggrieved by the conviction imposed by the lower appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 13. Heard both sides. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a discrepancy with regard to the scene of offence and there is no such evidence about the driver, driving of the auto in rash and negligent manner which are the primary ingredients for the offence under Section 304a I.P.C. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in 'Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs the State of Maharashtra aIR 1972 SC 221 '. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in 'Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs the State of Maharashtra aIR 1972 SC 221 '. In the said case, the victim suddenly crossed the road from west to east without taking note of the approaching bus. There was every possibility of the victim dashing against the bus, without the driver becoming aware of his crossing, till it was too late. If a person suddenly crossed the road, the bus driver however slow would not be in a position to stop the accident. Relying on this part of the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to set aside the conviction and to acquit the accused for the offence under Section 304a I.P.C. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in 'Satyawan Vs State of Haryana' (arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28.01.2015 in CRR No.295 of 2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh), for the proposition that in the above cited case the incident took place near a bus stand where the victim is said to be playing on a road unescorted by any elder. But the facts in the present case are different to the above cited case. 17. In the present case, the victim/deceased boy was playing along with other children on the road and the auto driver is carrying passengers of about fifteen (15) persons in the vehicle. He drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the boy and the boy was dragged for a distance of 10 yards. The incident itself proves that there is negligence on the part of the driver. This defense has not been taken by the petitioner in the trial court as well as in the lower appellate Court. He has raised the above said contention for the first time before this revisional Court. The defense, taken by the petitioner/accused in the trial Court is that he is not the driver of the auto and that he was falsely implicated in the case and no test identification parade was conducted. 18. The Gujarat High Court in 'Mahadev Bhagwanji Patel V. State of Gujarat (2001) 4 GLR 3424 ' has turned down the defense taken by the accused therein. 18. The Gujarat High Court in 'Mahadev Bhagwanji Patel V. State of Gujarat (2001) 4 GLR 3424 ' has turned down the defense taken by the accused therein. The defense which was taken in the said case is that, 'If a pedestrian suddenly crosses a road without taking note of the approaching the bus, there is every possibility of his dashing against the bus without the driver becoming aware of it. The bus driver cannot save accident however slowly he may be driving, and therefore, he cannot be held to be negligent in such a case.' On considering such defense the Gujarat High Court was not inclined for such evidence and convicted the acccused for the offence under Section 304a I.P.C. 19. Regarding the identification of accused, the Hon'ble apex Court in 'Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh Vs Republic of India (2011) 2 SCC 490 ' held that the identification of the accused for the first time before the trial Court is admissible in evidence. In the present case, PW2 caught hold of the accused and handed over to the police. Hence, the identification of the accused is rightly found out by the trial Court. When the eye witness had an ample opportunity to see the accused at the scene of offence and they have identified the accused before the Court, there is no need of the Test Identification Parade. 20. Hence, there is no suggestion of identification parade in the present case as the accused was caught hold by PW2 and he was handed over to the police at the time of the incident. as there is ample evidence regarding the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused, the contention raised by the petitioner relating to the identification parade is hereby turned down. The accused is found guilty for the rash and negligent act under Section.304a of I.P.C. and both the Courts below convicted him for the said offence. 21. I find no reasons to interfere with the judgments of the both the Courts below. 22. accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.