ORDER : Assailing the judgment dated 19.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge(FTC), Tirupati, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Section 304A, 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 134(a) and (b) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “M.V.Act”) by the judgment dated 16.03.2009 in C.C.No.491 of 2007 on the file of Court of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). 2. The revision case was admitted on 23.08.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2526 of 2011. 3. The petitioner was arrayed as accused in Cr.No.143 of 2007 of Chandragiri Police Station for the offences under Section 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V.Act and after thorough investigation police laid the charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.491 of 2007 on the file of Court of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, and after full pledged trial, found the accused guilty for the offences under Section 304A, 337 of IPC and Section 134(a) & (b) r/w.187 of M.V.Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, one (1) month and fifteen (15) days respectively and all the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.35 of 2009, before the Court of learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati and the same was dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the petitioner. 5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 6. 5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 6. Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court as well first appellate Court relied upon the testimony of interested witness and convicted the accused, which is incorrect under law; that there is a discrepancy among the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8; that P.Ws.6 and 9 even not supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile; that there is no proof that petitioner was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and that mere driving of the vehicle in high speed does not come under the rash and negligence in view of the provisions under the act. 7. He further submits that no witness identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. Thereby, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, which were confirmed by the first appellate Court, are liable to be set aside. 8. As against the same, Smt.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are concurrent findings recorded regarding the fact that the accused was the driver of the Tata sumo bearing No.AP 03 G 5119 at the time of incident; that there is a clear evidence from the testimony of P.Ws.5 and 8, which clinchingly established that the accused was the driver of the vehicle, who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the stationed APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 4925, resulting death of six (6) persons, among them three (3) persons died at the spot and three (3) persons died while undergoing treatment and P.Ws.5 and 8 are received injuries, who categorically deposed that accused drove the crime vehicle at high speed of 120 k.m. per hour at the time of accident. 9. She further submits that the trial Court after considering the entire material on record, rightly convicted the accused and the same was upheld by the first appellate Court. Thereby, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts below. 10. 9. She further submits that the trial Court after considering the entire material on record, rightly convicted the accused and the same was upheld by the first appellate Court. Thereby, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts below. 10. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 11. To determine the above said point, this Court perused the evidence on record and in all the prosecution examined sixteen (16) witnesses, among them P.Ws.5 and 8, who are injured as well direct witnesses to the incident. 12. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8 reveals that in particularly P.W.5 deposed that on 02.05.2004, he along with other deceased persons and injured were coming to Tirupati for marriage proposal in Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 03 5119 and when they reached to Angarala Village at about 11.00, the driver of the said Tata Sumo drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationed RTC Bus and three persons by name Sundara Raju, Manoj Kumar and Ammulu died on the spot and two persons by name Pooja and Niteesh died in the hospital. He sustained injuries on his left leg, left hand and right hand fingers. Then police shifted him along with deceased to the hospital. 13. During the cross examination nothing was elicited to disbelieve his testimony. On the other hand, he consistently deposed that at the time of accident the accused drove the crime vehicle at 100 to 120 k.m. per hour in a rash and negligent manner. May be true, he deposed that there is a turning before the accident place at Agnarala Village, but the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. 14. As well P.W.8 by name K.Kavitha deposed that on 02.05.2004 at about 08.30 a.m., she along with deceased persons, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.7, P.W.5 and L.W.10 Soundarya along with her child went to Tirupati for marriage proposal and when they reached to Chandragiri, the Tata Sumo vehicle dashed one RTC Bus and three persons died on the spot and three persons died while undergoing treatment. She sustained injuries on mouth, teeth and face on left side under cheek and after the accident she is facing hearing problem. She identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Nothing was elicited in her evidence to believe the contention of the accused that he was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. 15. On perusal of the material on record i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.27 in particularly Ex.P.17 wound certificate of P.W.5, Ex.P.18 wound certificate of P.W.3, Ex.P.19 wound certificate of L.W.10/Soundariya, Ex.P.20 wound certificate of P.W.7, Ex.P.21 wound certificate of P.W.6, Ex.P.22 wound certificate of P.W.8 and Ex.P.23 wound certificate of P.W.4, culminating the fact that accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed leading to accident. 16. It is a fact that it is not a head on collusion and the manner of the accident is also not in dispute. May be true, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is helpful, because they were in the bus at the time of incident and they deposed that when the driver was about to start the bus after verification, they heard a sound from the back side of the bus and they observed that three inmates of the Tata Sumo died on the spot. 17. May be true, P.Ws.3 and 4 could not identify the driver of the crime vehicle, but P.Ws.5 and 8, who are the injured and direct witnesses to the incident, categorically deposed about the manner of the incident and identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle. 18. Further, P.W.9 owner of the crime vehicle deposed that he does not know the accused, but on 01.05.2004 one Sundara Raja Naidu (deceased) asked him for the Tata Sumo for alliance of his second son and he voluntarily gave the vehicle to the said deceased and on the next day he received information that his vehicle meet with an accident. 19. Whatever facts stated by P.W.9 corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8, whose evidence is cogent and convincing and nothing found from their evidence to disbelieve their testimony regarding manner of the accident and identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. 20. 19. Whatever facts stated by P.W.9 corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8, whose evidence is cogent and convincing and nothing found from their evidence to disbelieve their testimony regarding manner of the accident and identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. 20. In view of the facts and circumstances, above discussion and material placed on record, there is nothing on record to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court as well first appellate Court in convicting the accused for the offences under Section 304A, 337 of IPC and Section 134(a) & (b) r/w.187 of M.V.Act. More so, regarding quantum of sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused, the trial Court take a lenient view and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) months, one (1) month and fifteen (15) days respectively and all the sentences shall run concurrently. Thereby, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts below and no merits in this revision. Therefore, the present revision is liable for dismissal. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 19.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2009 on the file of Court of learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge(FTC), Tirupati. The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the petitioner/accused, shall be given setoff under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, to serve the remaining sentence. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.