Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chilaka Baburao, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 5 February, 2025
APHC010447812010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 365/2010
Between:
CHILAKA BABURAO, S/O GOPAIAH, RTC DRIVER, R/O LEMALLE
VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF AP, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at
Amaravati.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
K RAMAMOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Revision was preferred under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.,') against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2009 dated 22.02.2010, passed by the learned VIII 2 Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010 05/02/2022 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, finding the Accused /Revisionist guilty for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.,') observing that the Revisionist had not found guilty for the offence under Section 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' and set aside the conviction recorded under Section 338 of 'the I.P.C.' The Revisionist was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of the fine the Revisionist had to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. Originally, the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur passed judgment on 09.03.2009 in C.C. No.281 of 2007, finding the Revisionist guilty of the offence under Section 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he should undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. This Court had heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
4. Mrs. Y.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri K.Ramamohan, learned Counsel for the Revisionist argues that there was no corroboration between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused as there was no identity of the Revisionist at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. The 3 Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010 05/02/2022 Prosecution had not proved the guilt of the Revisionist beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused is entitled to acquittal and the Revision deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, Mr.Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are corroborating in material particulars pointing out the guilt of the Revisionist that he had only committed the accident by driving a bus in rash and negligent manner. The Investigating Officer also supported this version. Prosecution proved the guilt of the Revisionist beyond all reasonable doubts and there is nothing in this Revision Petition, as no substantial grounds are raised by the Revisionist warranting the interference from this Court since there are no material irregularities either in respect of the procedure or appreciation of the evidence. There was no misreading of the evidence. Hence, it is argued that the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by both the Counsel. I have perused the record.
7. Now the point for consideration is, whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.123 of 2009 dated 22.02.2010, passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?
4Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010
05/02/2022
8. It was the case of the prosecution that Rambihari (LW.1) is the son of Hari Om Thivari (P.W.1) and they are natives of Madhya Pradesh State. They migrated to Guntur earning their livelihood by doing sweets business on their pushcarts. On 19.03.2007, at about 10:00 P.M., the Revisionist being a driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 389 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit LW.1 & P.W.1 when they were going by walk by pushing their carts. As a result, they sustained injuries and their pushcarts were badly damaged. They were shifted to the Government Hospital for treatment. P.W.1 was treated as in-patient and LW.1 was treated as out-patient. They reported to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the report as a case in Cr.No.7 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of 'the I.P.C.,' and investigated.
9. It was the evidence of Dr.P.Vijayanjaneyulu that he had treated P.W.1 & L.W.1 and issued wound certificates certifying that L.W.1 sustained simple injuries and P.W.1 sustained grievous injury as per the report of the radiologist. After completion of the investigation, P.W.8 Sub-Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' and conducted the trial. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and got marked nine documents. P.Ws.2 to 6 are the eye-witnesses and they in unison deposed that the Revisionist drove the bus in a rash or negligent manner and hit the push carts and caused injuries to LW.1 and P.W.1. The 5 Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010 05/02/2022 P.W.3 identified the Revisionist as the driver of the crime vehicle. P.W.3 and other witnesses had also made enquiries from the Revisionist and they confirmed that the Revisionist is Chilaka Baburao. P.W.6 also identified the Revisionist.
10. The learned Trial Court found the Revisionist guilty of the offence under Section 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' based on the evidence of the eye-witnesses. However, in the Appeal preferred by the Revisionist before the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' was set aside, but the Revisionist was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 337 of 'the I.P.C.,' and he was imposed the sentence as mentioned supra. The reason for modifying the conviction from Section 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' to Section 337 of 'the I.P.C.,' by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, was that the opinion given by the P.W.5 was not an independent one, but based on the opinion expressed by the radiologist. The X-rays, which were examined by the radiologist, were not filed before the Court and the report of the radiologist based on which the P.W.5 expressed his opinion, was also not placed either before the learned Appellate Court or before the learned Trial Court.
11. P.Ws.2 & 3 clearly, who were eye-witnesses, testified that the Revisionist drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the injuries to LW.1 and P.W.1. Their evidence is mutually consistent, 6 Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010 05/02/2022 corroborating, trustworthy, and inspiring confidence. Evidence of all the prosecution witnesses corroborating with each other. There were no material contradictions or omissions in the evidence of the witnesses to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. The evidence of an injured witness must ordinarily be ranked high and should receive evidence because such a witness does not normally screen the real offender and invoke an innocent person his place as laid down in Hai Har v. State of U.P.1 There were material eye-witnesses who had seen the occurrence of the offence and deposed vividly before the learned Trial Court. There was neither misreading of the evidence nor perverse finding. The judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is correct, legal, and proper. There was no irregularity much less material irregularity in conducting the trial and finding the Revisionist guilty.
12. The learned Appellate Court had rightly found the Revisionist guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 337 of 'the I.P.C.' There is no miscarriage of justice let alone flagrant miscarriage of justice. Nay, Section 337 of 'the I.P.C.,' is a compoundable offence with the permission of the Court as per Section 320 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurnat Singh v. State of Punjab 2. Section 337 of 'the I.P.C.,' gives discretion to the Court either to impose simple imprisonment or fine or both. It is reported that the Revisionist has been working as a driver in 1 1971 Cr LJ 1578 2 (2007) 10 SCC 582 7 Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010 05/02/2022 APSRTC and there are no instances of either prior or subsequent adverse incidents committing similar offences.
13. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar3. This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar4. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, ends of justice would sub- serve by imposing penalty alone since the offence took place in the year 2007 and nearly 18 years passed by.
14. Therefore sentence of imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs.500/- as imposed by the learned Appellate Court is modified into a sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the Revisionist and payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) excluding the payment of Rs.500/- paid by the Revisionist pursuant to the order of the learned Appellate Court. The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) now imposed shall be paid to P.W.1 as compensation under Section 457 of 'the Cr.P.C.'
15. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to direct the Revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to P.W.1 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the 3 AIR 1979 SC 1360 4 (1999) 7 SCC 604 8 Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010 05/02/2022 Revisionist shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. No order as to costs.
16. Registry is directed to mark a copy of this Order to the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, who shall take further steps as per this Order.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 05.02.2025 VTS