Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 353 (AP)

Karri Sreenivasa Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-03-13

V.SRINIVAS

body2024
JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 22.01.2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 140 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 07.05.2007 in C.C. No. 57 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, for the offences under section 304-A, 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 25.01.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl. R.C.M.P. No. 128 of 2010. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: (i) On 11.01.2003, in the afternoon, the petitioner being driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 37 T 222 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in intoxicated state and dashed a stationed auto of PW-2 in opposite direction near Harijanapeta at Talluru, resulted death of three persons at the spot and injuries to PWs. 1 to 5. (ii) Basing on Ex.P.1 statement of PW-1, PW-10-S.I. of Police, Peddapuram Police Station, registered a case in Cr. No. 2 of 2003 for the offences under Section 304(A), 338 and 337 of IPC and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, PW-11 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 57 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, trial was conducted, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one (1) month, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one (1) year and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) months, for the respective offences. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl. Appeal No. 140 of 2007, before the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 22.01.2010, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl. Appeal No. 140 of 2007, before the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 22.01.2010, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not the driver of the crime lorry by the time of accident; that he did not commit any offence; that no proper evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that petitioner was driver of the crime lorry by the date of incident; that no blood test was conducted to say that the petitioner was in drunken state by the time of incident; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Against the same, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the petitioner drove the crime lorry in a rash and negligent manner in drunken state and caused the incident as held by the Courts below; that in view of the testimony of prosecution witnesses specifically PWs. 1, 3 to 7, the accused is the driver of the crime lorry by the date of incident; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner for the said offences; that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining PWs. 1 to 11 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.18. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. There is no dispute about involvement of the crime lorry in the accident as well death of the deceased persons and injuries to PWs. 1 to 11 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.18. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. There is no dispute about involvement of the crime lorry in the accident as well death of the deceased persons and injuries to PWs. 1 to 5 in the incident. 12. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that he was not the driver of the crime lorry on the date of incident. 13. In view of the above said contention, it is relevant to refer the testimony of PWs. 1, 3 to 7, who said to be eye-witness to the incident, categorically deposed that the accused was the driver of the crime lorry by the date of incident and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the station auto and persons on the road, resulted death of three persons and injuries to PWs. 1 to 5 and public gathered at the scene of offence caught hold the accused. Furthermore, even during cross examination, PW-4 testified that he saw the accused while he was getting down from the lorry. 14. Moreover, Ex.P.18 trip sheet of the crime vehicle, which is marked through PW-11 investigating officer, shows that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle by the date of incident. The same is corroborated to the testimony of PWs. 1, 3 to 7. Nothing was elicited to disbelieve the testimony of PWs. 1, 3 to 7 with regard to the identity of the accused as driver of the crime lorry by the date of incident. 15. Now, coming to the rash and negligence, it is the prosecution version that accused drove the crime lorry in a rash and negligent manner in drunken state and caused the incident. It is categorical testimony of PW-9 Medical Officer that basing on his observations, which are detailed in Ex.P.15 certificate, he opined that the accused was under the influence of alcohol. On perusal of Ex.P.15, PW-9 examined the accused on 11.01.2003 at 04.30 p.m., and it contains the signature and seal of PW-9. The testimony of PW-9 is corroborated to the prosecution versions and even the prosecution categorically proves the rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner by examining PWs. 1 to 7. 16. On perusal of Ex.P.15, PW-9 examined the accused on 11.01.2003 at 04.30 p.m., and it contains the signature and seal of PW-9. The testimony of PW-9 is corroborated to the prosecution versions and even the prosecution categorically proves the rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner by examining PWs. 1 to 7. 16. The trial Court as well Sessions Court categorically held that the testimony of prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused had driven the crime lorry in a rash and negligence manner, resulted death of three persons and injuries to five persons. 17. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses. 18. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that there is rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the incident and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Trial Court as well Sessions Court in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offences. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the said offences. 19. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the accident was occurred on 11.01.2003 and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court. He also brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi), AIR 1977 SC 892 wherein the APEX Court considered the facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one (1) month rigorous imprisonment. 20. 20. He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, AIR 1973 SC 2127 wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone, but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 21. In this connection, it is relevant to make a mention a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported between Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 8 SCC 225 wherein the relevant observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 was that “the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of a precious human life. It was a rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition. Having regard to the all these facts, a lenient view can be taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced.” 22. Even in Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 209 the APEX Court at paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 held that “the appellant/accused has already undergone one month jail sentence; second, the offence in question neither against the society nor it involves any moral turpitude and nor it has resulted in causing any harm or injury to any human being except causing some damage to the railway property, viz. one railway crossing gate; and lastly, the offence is now 13 years old. In view of the aforementioned three reasons and in the interest of justice, therefore of the considered opinion that the six months jail sentence awarded to the appellate by the three Courts below deserves to be altered to what he has already undergone by the appellant till date.” 23. As well in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 (3) Crimes 89 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No. 2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.” 24. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to be happened on 11.01.2003 and by this time twenty (20) years have already been lapsed, but there was a loss of three human lives and injuries sustained by five persons. 25. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one (1) year from two (2) years for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 26. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused to that of one (1) year rigorous imprisonment instead of two (2) years for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The rest of the judgment dated 07.05.2007 in C.C. No. 57 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, shall stands confirmed. The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the petitioner/accused, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, to serve the remaining sentence, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner. 27. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 28. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.