ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2007, on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur (for short ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), challenging the judgment therein, dated 17.12.2008, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in Calendar Case No. 213 of 2006, dated 31.07.2007, on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali (for short ‘the trial Court’) for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’). 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The State, represented by Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Tenali filed charge sheet in Crime No. 89 of 2006 for the offence under Section 304-A against the accused alleging in substance that the offence took place on Cherukupalli - Vijayawada State High Way near Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple of Tenali III Town Police Station limits. LW-1 - Narumanchi Sasank is the second son of the deceased and a direct witness to the occurrence. On 12.04.2006 afternoon at 01:00 p.m. both the deceased i.e. Narumanchi Lakshminarayana and LW-1 started on separate bicycles to go to their house via old bridge. The deceased was proceeding ahead of LW-1. On their way, after passing Anjaneyaswamy Temple, accused being driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP31U2113 came behind the deceased at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn and dashed against the cyclist deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. LW-1, second son of the deceased and LWs. 4 to LW-8 i.e. Ganisetti Malleswari, Matlapudi George, Veddu Srinivas, Akkala Nageswara Rao and Shaik Basha witnessed the occurrence. LW-1 shifted the deceased to the Hospital of LW-9 - Dr. K. Padmanabhaiah and admitted him in the Hospital for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died at 03:00 p.m. on the same day. Then, LW-1 turned to the Police Station and presented a report to LW-16 - ASI, who registered the FIR and took up investigation. LW-1 shifted the deceased to the Hospital of LW-9 - Dr. K. Padmanabhaiah and admitted him in the Hospital for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died at 03:00 p.m. on the same day. Then, LW-1 turned to the Police Station and presented a report to LW-16 - ASI, who registered the FIR and took up investigation. During investigation, LW-16 visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators i.e. LW-11 - Sistla Muralikrishna and LW-13 - Bhagavathula Ramakrishna. On 12.04.2006 at 03:30 p.m. LW-16 got prepared the observation report. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Thereafter, LW-16 proceeded to the hospital of LW-9 and, in the presence of panchayatdars and blood relatives, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 05:00 to 07:00 p.m. Thereafter, he forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination. During investigation, he examined LWs.6 to LW-9 and also examined LW-10 - Valuvole Tandavakrishna, owner of the offending vehicle. LW-14 - Dr. K. Hema, Medical Officer, conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. LW-15 - K.G.K. Raju, Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI), Tenali inspected the crime vehicle and issued accident report opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. LW-16 arrested the accused on 19.04.2006 and sent him for remand. Hence, the charge-sheet. 4. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate, Tenali took cognizance of the case under the above provision of law. After appearance of the accused and after complying the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C. accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. with reference to the allegations in the case of prosecution, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution before the Court below examined PWs. 1 to PW-11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-12. 6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was subjected to examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances for which he denied the same and did not let in any defence evidence. 7. 1 to PW-11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-12. 6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was subjected to examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances for which he denied the same and did not let in any defence evidence. 7. The learned Magistrate, Tenali, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC and convicted him under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. After questioning him about the quantum of sentence, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. 8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, which came to be dismissed on merits. Further felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused in C.C. No. 213 of 2006 and un-successful appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2007 preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. 9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2007, dated 17.12.2008, on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur is sustainable in terms of legality, regularity and propriety? 10. POINT: Sri N. Harinadh, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would contend that there was no identification parade conducted by the Investigating Officer involving PW-1 so as to identify the accused as driver of the offending vehicle. The Investigating Officer did not seize and produce the offending vehicle before the Court below. PWs. 2 to PW-4 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW-1 had no corroboration from any source. Both the Courts below erroneously on assumptions and presumptions convicted the revision petitioner, as such Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohanta Lal Saha vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 1968 ACJ 124 , State of Haryana vs. Sher Singh, AIR 2009 SC 823 and State of Karnataka vs. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493 . 11. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohanta Lal Saha vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 1968 ACJ 124 , State of Haryana vs. Sher Singh, AIR 2009 SC 823 and State of Karnataka vs. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493 . 11. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that PW-1 categorically deposed that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. The incident was happened in a broad day light as such there was no necessity to conduct any identification parade. PW-6, owner of the vehicle, for the reasons best known, turned hostile and his hostility was proved by the prosecution by examining the Investigating Officer. PW-6 produced the C-Book as well as the driving license of the accused before the Investigating Officer. Later, the accused surrendered before the Investigating Officer. The Home Guard, who was examined by the prosecution i.e. PW-7, has categorically spoken about the involvement of the offending vehicle at the accident spot and by the time, he has gone to the spot, accused fled away from there. The details of the ownership and the name of the driver were clearly mentioned in the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report, who issued the same after verification of the necessary records. Both the Courts below rightly recorded cogent reasons to convict the revision petitioner and as such Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, during reply, would contend that in the event of dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case, for any valid reasons, the Court may reduce the term of imprisonment as the revision petitioner is now aged about 60 years and already he served out the imprisonment of more than one month either during the course of investigation or after execution of Non Bailable Warrant. 13. Firstly, this Court would like to make it clear that as on date, the revision petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in the concerned jail and the circumstances in which he is in jail as of now are liable to be referred herein. The revision petitioner having filed the Criminal Revision Case, got suspended the sentence of imprisonment, never co-operated with the Court for disposal of the case. The revision petitioner having filed the Criminal Revision Case, got suspended the sentence of imprisonment, never co-operated with the Court for disposal of the case. His counsel was not at all getting any representation. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court issued a Bailable Warrant so as to secure his presence but Police were unable to execute as his whereabouts were not known to them. Under the circumstances, this Court issued Non-Bailable Warrant with a direction to the Police to produce the petitioner before the Court below for entrustment of the conviction warrant pending disposal of this Revision. While so, the Police executed the Non-Bailable Warrant and filed compliance report. So, this is the scenario in which the petitioner is undergoing sentence as he absconded the process of law by breaching the terms of bail bond. 14. Now, in the light of the contentions raised, I would like to appreciate the same. Both the Courts below found favour with the case of the prosecution. So, the prosecution was supposed to establish before the Court below the fact that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident i.e. on 12.04.2006 at 12:00 noon and he caused the death of the deceased by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As seen from the evidence of PW-1, he is the son of the deceased. On 12.04.2006, the deceased died in the lorry accident. At about 12:00 noon, he and his father were coming from Viswa College, near bus stand on two separate cycles towards Ramalingeswarapeta and when they reached near to Anjaneyaswami Temple near old bridge, one lorry which was coming in speed manner without blowing horn dashed against the cycle of his father. His father was going at a distance of 100 feet from him. Due to hit of the lorry, his father fell on the ground and received injuries. Lorry dragged his father to some extent. Number of the lorry is AP31U2113. They stopped the lorry. They saw the driver of the lorry. Accused is the driver of lorry. His father was shifted to Devi Nursing Home, Tenali where he died at 03:00 p.m. Later, he presented Ex.P-1 report to the Police. 15. PWs. 2, PW-3 and PW-4, the so called direct witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution and their hostility is proved through Exs.P-2 to P-4. Accused is the driver of lorry. His father was shifted to Devi Nursing Home, Tenali where he died at 03:00 p.m. Later, he presented Ex.P-1 report to the Police. 15. PWs. 2, PW-3 and PW-4, the so called direct witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution and their hostility is proved through Exs.P-2 to P-4. Prosecution confronted with them with reference to Exs.P-2 to P-4 respectively and they denied the same. But their hostility was proved through the mouth of PW-11, the Investigating Officer. So, their evidence is of no use to the case of the prosecution. 16. Coming to the evidence of PW-6, the owner of the vehicle, he deposed that he is not the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP31U2113. He never saw the accused. He does not know anything about the case. He turned hostile and he denied that he stated as in Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-6 is proved through the evidence of PW-11, Investigating Officer. 17. PW-7 is the Home Guard, who was on traffic duty, and he deposed that on 12.04.2006 he was on duty from 12:00 noon to 04:00 p.m. at old bridge, Tenali to regulate the traffic. At about 01:00 p.m. he heard the sound of accident and on seeing the gathering at a distance of 15 to 20 yards from the place, he further went there and found the lorry No. 2113. He then found one man was under the rear tyres of the above lorry with injuries. By that time, the driver of the lorry left that place and he did not see him. He sent the injured to the hospital. He has reported the Police about the incident. Later, he was examined by the Police. 18. PW-8 is the mahazar witness to the observation of the scene of offence and inquest report and he supported the case of the prosecution. 19. PW-9 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-9, post-mortem report, opining that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. 20. PW-10 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector and he deposed that on 19.04.2006, on requisition from the SHO, Tenali, III Town Police Station, he inspected the vehicle bearing registration No. AP31U2113, goods vehicle, stationed at III Town Police Station. He found no damages to the vehicle. 20. PW-10 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector and he deposed that on 19.04.2006, on requisition from the SHO, Tenali, III Town Police Station, he inspected the vehicle bearing registration No. AP31U2113, goods vehicle, stationed at III Town Police Station. He found no damages to the vehicle. He put the vehicle to the road test, found the breaking system and steering system in good condition and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. He issued Ex.P-10 report. 21. PW-11 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed about registration of FIR basing on Ex.P-1 and his proceeding to the scene of offence and preparation of rough sketch of the scene of offence, Ex.P-12, in the presence of the punch witnesses. He further deposed about examination of PWs. 1 to PW-3. He deposed about the inquest conducted by him. He has further spoken about the examination of PWs. 4 and PW-5 at the scene of offence. He got conducted motor vehicle inspection through the MVI and forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination. He also examined PW-6, owner of the vehicle, who stated before him as in Ex.P-6. On 19.04.2006 the accused surrendered in the Police Station. He arrested the accused and forwarded him for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the SI of Police filed charge sheet. 22. Firstly, I would like to deal with as to whether the judgment of both the Courts below that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle is tenable? Having regard to the answers spoken by PW-1 in cross-examination, I am of the considered view that Ex.P-1 was not supposed to contain the name of the driver of the vehicle as PW-1 did not know the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. As seen from Ex.P-1, there is a clear whisper that PW-1 was a witness to the occurrence. His evidence has corroboration from the contents of Ex.P-1. According to the case of prosecution, the driver stopped the lorry on raising cries by PW-1 and absconded. A look at the contents of Ex.P-1 and the evidence of PW-1 discloses that he has a chance to see the driver. The incident was happened in broad day light. His evidence has corroboration from the contents of Ex.P-1. According to the case of prosecution, the driver stopped the lorry on raising cries by PW-1 and absconded. A look at the contents of Ex.P-1 and the evidence of PW-1 discloses that he has a chance to see the driver. The incident was happened in broad day light. Though he deposed in cross-examination that he had no prior acquaintance with the driver, but as the incident was occurred in a broad day light, there was every possibility for PW-1 to identify the driver. He reiterated in cross-examination that he saw the accused on the date of incident and again on the date of evidence. He does not know the accused prior to the incident. Police did not conduct any test identification parade. It is to be noticed that there was no whisper in Ex.P-1 that PW-1 could not see the driver thoroughly and that he can identify. On the other hand, Ex.P-1 means that on his cries, the driver stopped the vehicle and after that he absconded. Under the circumstances, non-conducting of any Test Identification Parade is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Admittedly, the so called direct witnesses i.e. PWs. 2 to PW-4 did not support the case of the prosecution but, simply because they did not support the case of prosecution, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be disbelieved. So, one has to look into the evidence of PW-1 to ascertain as to whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is convincing and trustworthy. PW-1 in cross-examination reiterated the manner of the accident clearly. He found his father under the rear tyre of the lorry. The offence took place in a busy centre. Nothing is elicited during his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. 23. Apart from this, the prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW-7, Home Guard, whose evidence discloses that he found the offending vehicle stationed at the accident spot. So, the prosecution clinchingly established the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. The crucial case of the prosecution is that PW-6 was the owner of the offending vehicle, who did not support the case of prosecution. Ex.P-6 contradicts his testimony. 24. The case of the prosecution is that PW-6 claimed that he purchased the lorry from the owner by name T. Venkata Subba Reddy but the ownership was not transferred. The crucial case of the prosecution is that PW-6 was the owner of the offending vehicle, who did not support the case of prosecution. Ex.P-6 contradicts his testimony. 24. The case of the prosecution is that PW-6 claimed that he purchased the lorry from the owner by name T. Venkata Subba Reddy but the ownership was not transferred. Admittedly, there were laches on the part of Investigating Officer in not examining the registered owner of the crime vehicle. It is settled law that the perfunctory investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal unless prejudice is caused to the accused. 25. It is to be noticed that, according to the evidence of PW-9, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, he issued Ex.P-10 report. As evident from Ex.P-10, accused was shown as the driver of the offending vehicle with driving license bearing No. 1943/TU/99. Absolutely the defence of the accused is quite evasive. He did not challenge the testimony of PW-11 - Investigating Officer as to how he came into possession of the driving license of the accused. It is not the case of the accused that his driving license was seized by the Police with force. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution is that PW-6, non-registered owner of the vehicle, produced the C-Book as well as the driving license of the accused but accused failed to account for how his driving license could be in the custody of the Police. The case of the prosecution is that accused surrendered himself before the Police and PW-11 testified the same. Accused had no necessity whatsoever to surrender himself before the Police when he had nothing to do with the offending vehicle. When the incriminating circumstances were put to him, during 313 Cr.P.C. examination, he did not disclose that he was not the driver of the offending vehicle. Under the circumstances, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be disbelieved. The circumstances i.e. referred to above would only falsify the contention of the accused. In my considered view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge elaborately dealt with all these aspects and found favour with the case of the prosecution endorsing the view taken by the learned Magistrate. 26. The evidence of PW-1 shows the manner in which the accident was occurred. Accused had no business to hit back the bicycle of the deceased by coming from his backside. 26. The evidence of PW-1 shows the manner in which the accident was occurred. Accused had no business to hit back the bicycle of the deceased by coming from his backside. Accused had no bona-fide defence that he was not at fault in driving the offending vehicle. On the other hand, he had no consistent defence throughout. He got cross-examined PW-1 as if there was no possibility to drive the vehicle with speed. At the same time, he contended that he was not the driver. So, both the defences of the accused would not reconcile with each other. Undoubtedly, the evidence of PW-1 proved the rash and negligent act against the accused. 27. As seen from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohanta Lal Saha (supra), it was a case where there were improvements in the testimony of the direct witnesses as such it was held to be not believable. The above said facts have nothing to do with the present case. Coming to the other decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sher Singh (supra), there was no specific material to show that accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident especially with reference to non-mentioning of his name in the dying declaration. Even the facts in the above said case, obviously, stood on a different footing. In Satish (supra), there was no evidence on record to establish rashness and negligence in driving the truck on the part of the respondent as such the High Court of Karnataka acquitted the respondent. In such circumstances the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the State of Karnataka. The facts and circumstances in the above said case also stood on a different footing. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satish (supra), would not support the contention of the revision petitioner in the light of the aforesaid findings. 28. The learned Magistrate, Tenali as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur found favour with the case of the prosecution with sound reasoning. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2007, dated 17.12.2008, is not in accordance with law and that it suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 29. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2007, dated 17.12.2008, is not in accordance with law and that it suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 29. Turning to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as the revision petitioner is aged about 60 years, the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced, this Court is not at all inclined to do so. The trial Court admittedly took a lenient view in sentencing the accused to one year when the offence was punishable with two years. The conduct of the revision petitioner, before this Court is such that he absconded from the process of law and with great difficulty, the Police could execute the Non Bailable Warrants against the accused. So, he deserves no sympathy for reducing the term of imprisonment. Hence, this Court is not inclined to consider the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 30. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 31. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 17.05.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall intimate to the Jail Authorities concerned that the Criminal Revision Case No. 1888 of 2008 filed by him is dismissed. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. 32. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.