Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pokala Srinivasa Rao , vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 4 March, 2024
APHC010653562010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF 3364
MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND
TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1253 OF 2010
Between:
POKALA SRINIVASA RAO ,, S/o. Sanyasulu, Driver of Goods Auto
AP-35-U-3196, R/o. Thalari Village, L.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram
District.
...PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri C. Upendra, learned counsel,
representing Smt. T.V. Sridevi
Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Cases referred:
The Court made the following:
O R D E R:
Challenge in this Criminal Revision Case is to the judgment, dated 02.07.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2008, on the file of Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram ("Sessions Judge" for short), whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal 2 Appeal filed by the appellant confirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) in C.C.No.114 of 2007, on the file of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kothavalasa ("Magistrate" for short), dated 03.11.2008.
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet in Crime No.40 of 2007 of L. Kota Police Station, is that the accused is resident of Thalari Village and he is the driver of Goods Auto bearing A.P.35-U-3196 (hereinafter will be referred to as "offending vehicle") at the time of accident. On 11.06.2007 one Singanapalli Rama Rao (hereinafter will be referred to as "deceased") along with his wife L.W.4-Singanapalli Sri Mangalakshmi Devi @ Sridevi, were proceeding from Khasapeta Village to Visakhapatnam on their motorcycle bearing No.A.P.35-E- 5230. At 7-30 a.m., they reached near Gangubudi junction. Accused driver of the offending vehicle, driven the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed while proceeding from Kothavalasa side and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result there of, the deceased died instantaneously and his wife i.e., pillion rider received grievous injuries on her both 3 legs and body. L.W.5-Sirisipalli Chinnbanmnaidu and L.W.6-Dasari Sanyasinaidu, occupants in the offending vehicle, also received injuries on their person. Basing on the report given by L.W.1- Chokkakula Raghuram, a case in Crime No.40 of 2007 under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC was registered and investigated into by L.W.16-B. Mallunaidu, ASI of L.Kota Police Station. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators. He forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination to the MedicalOfficer, Community Health Center, S. Kota. L.W.11-Podela Ramu, the photographer, took photos at the scene of offence. L.W.12-SM Suresh Kumar, Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspected the offending vehicle and opined that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle. L.W.13- Dr. K. Raja Sagar, the Medical Officer, Vaishnavi Hospital, Visakhapatnam, treated the injured and issued wound certificate stating that the injuries are grievous in nature. L.W.14-Dr. R. Thrinadha Rao, examined L.W.6-Dasari Sanyasinaidu and issued wound certificate stating that the injuries are grievous in nature. During investigation, L.W.17-B. Lalitha, Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 25.06.2007 and sent him for remand. The 4 accused drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused instantaneous death of the deceased and caused injuries to L.W.4 to L.W.6. Hence, the charge sheet.
4) The learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC. After appearance of the accused and on compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, during the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.14 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material in the evidence let in by the prosecution for which he denied the same and stated that he did not commit any offence and he has no defence witnesses.
6) The learned Magistrate on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC, convicted him under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under 5 Section 304-A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 337 of IPC. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 338 of IPC.
7) Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2008, on the file of learned Sessions Judge, which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the said judgment in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2008, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
8) Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment, dated 02.07.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2008, on the file learned Sessions Judge is sustainable in law and facts in terms of legality, regularity or propriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?
Point:-
9) Sri C. Upendra, learned counsel, representing Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is contra with each.
They are interested in the case of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the evidence of P.W.4, who was the son of the owner of the offending vehicle properly 6 and misinterpreted the evidence. The learned Magistrate did not give any credence to the evidence of P.W.4 like the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. If the evidence of P.W.4 is considered, absolutely, the accused was not at all fault and the deceased was at fault. Both the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge committed an error in convicting the accused, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.
10) Smt. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that there was no dispute about the identity of the accused throughout. The prosecution witnesses as well the person travelled in the offending vehicle attributed fault against the accused. The evidence of P.W.4 was nothing but vague who for obvious reasons did not disclose the real incident. However, both the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
11) As seen from Ex.P.1, it is a report presented by P.W.1. The substance of the allegations in Ex.P.1 is that he was moving on his motorbike bearing No.A.P.35-F-5905 towards Kothavalasa on his LIC business. The pillion rider was Chokkakula Appalanaidu. His brother-in-law (deceased) and his younger sister were moving on their motorbike bearing No.A.P.35-E-5230. He was following behind them. At 7-30 a.m., one auto i.e., the offending vehicle 7 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorbike of his brother-in-law and younger sister. Then his brother-in-law fell near palm tree and died on the spot and his younger sister, who was pillion rider, fell on the bonnet of the auto and received injuries. They telephoned to 108 Ambulance and they were shifted to the hospital. The driver of the offending vehicle is Pokala Srinivasa Rao. This is the substance of the report lodged by P.W.1.
12) Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, he supported the case of the prosecution. He and his brother Appalanaidu were moving on motorbike bearing No.A.P.35-F-5905. His brother-in- law and sister were moving on their motorbike bearing No.A.P.35- E-5230. At that time one auto bearing No.35-U-3196 came from Kothavalasa in rashly and speedily and dashed the motorbike riding by his brother-in-law and he fell near palm tree and died on spot. His sister, the pillion rider, fell on the bonnet of auto and her two legs were fractured. The accused is the auto driver. Ex.P.1- report given by him.
13) P.W.2 was the pillion rider on the motorbike of P.W.1. He deposed that his sister and brother-in-law were proceeding on their motorbike and he and P.W.1 were proceeding on their motorbike. When they reached Uttarapalli center, one auto TATA ACE came in opposite direction and dashed the motorbike of the 8 deceased and the deceased died on the spot and his sister received fracture on her leg. At that time, they are at a distance of 40 feet from the scene of offence. His sister was taken to hospital for treatment in 108 Ambulance.
14) P.W.3 was the sister of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and wife of deceased she also supported the case of the prosecution. According to her, on 11.06.2007 at 7.30 a.m., she and her husband were returning to Chinnamusirivada from Khasapeta on Splendor Plus motorbike. They were moving on the left side. One TATA Goods Carrier Auto came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit their motorbike and dragged their motorbike. Consequently, their motorbike hit one palmirah tree and then she fell into auto and lost conscious. Her husband died on the spot. She regained conscious in the hospital and she was there in the hospital for two months and 15 days and she was unable to move from the bed.
15) The prosecution examined P.W.4, who testified that on 11.06.2007 at 7-30 a.m., he was travelling along with the accused in TATA Goods Carrier auto bearing No.A.P.35-U-3196. He sat by the side of the driver. They started from Visakhapatnam to go to L. Kota. When they reached Uttarapalli, one lorry gave signal to stop the lorry and accused with a view to cross the lorry, passed by the side of lorry and then two persons came on a motorbike in 9 opposite direction as such, the accident was occurred. He (P.W.4) received grievous injuries on his face and he fell down. His father is the owner of the Goods Carrier and the accused is the driver.
16) Turning to the evidence of P.W.5, another person, who travelled in the auto, he deposed that the offence took place at 7-30 a.m. By then he was travelling in the auto along with accused and another boy. The accused was driving the vehicle. He sat in front of cabin by the side of the driver and boy sat between them. They started from Gopalapatnam of Visakhapatnam towards L. Kota. They reached between Uttarapalli and Gangupudi one two wheeler vehicle with a male and female came in opposite direction. Accused driven the auto in a speed manner on the right side of the road instead of left side of the road and dashed the two wheeler came on the left side opposite to them and he received injuries on the head and left shoulder. He fell unconscious and gained conscious on the next day.
17) P.W.6 was the person, who came to know about the occurrence and acted as a mahazar witness to the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and he testified the said fact.
18) P.W.7 was the mahazar witness to the observation report of the scene of offence by the police and also a mahazar witness at the time of inquest and he testified those facts. 10
19) P.W.8 was the medical officer, who examined S. Sridevi and issued wound certificate. He spoke of taking X-rays and fractures and the injuries are grievous as well as simple in nature.
20) P.W.9 was the Photographer, who photographed the scene of offence.
21) P.W.10 was the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the offending vehicle on 12.06.2007 and found that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects.
22) P.W.11 was the medical officer, who examined P.W.5 and issued wound certificate and he spoke that the injuries are grievous as well as simple.
23) P.W.12 was another medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report stating that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest and damage to the vital organs of the body.
24) P.W.13, the Asst. Sub-Inspector, deposed that on 11.06.2007 at 8-30 a.m., P.W.1 came to the police station and gave a report. He registered it as FIR and took up investigation. He conducted observation of the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined several witnesses and handed over the investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police. 11
25) P.W.14 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, who spoke of investigation done by her and arrest of the accused.
26) Coming to the identity aspect of the accused, P.W.4 no other than the son of owner of the offending vehicle, testified that the accused was the drive of the offending vehicle. Apart from this, there was evidence of P.W.1 also regarding the identity of the accused. Identity of the accused during cross examination of P.W.1 was not in dispute. Though P.W.2 did not speak of the identity of the accused, but his evidence is that the driver of Auto TATA AC driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In the entire cross examination of P.W.2, it is not the case of the accused that the accused was not the driver of the offending vehicle. On the other hand, one of the witnesses i.e., P.W.5, who travelled in the auto, categorically testified about the fact that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. In the entire process of the trial before the learned Magistrate, the accused never ventured to dispute the fact that he was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
27) Coming to the factum of death of deceased, there was no dispute that the deceased received multiple injuries and he died due to shock on account of the injuries received. Apart from this, the injuries received by the prosecution witnesses were also proved by virtue of medical evidence available on record. The 12 accused never ventured to dispute the cause of death and further the fact that P.W.3 and P.W.4 received injuries. Even the prosecution exhibited Ex.P.5, wound certificate of the accused.
28) Now, the crucial thing that is to be considered by this Court is as to whether the accused drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased and injuries to P.W.3 and P.W.4. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 means that the accused drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Much reliance was placed by the revision petitioner on the evidence of P.W.4 contending that both the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge did not give credence to the evidence of P.W.4 like other prosecution injured witnesses.
29) It is to be stated that what P.W.4 deposed that he was one of the passengers in the Goods Carrier Auto driven by the accused. When they reached Uttaravalli, one lorry gave signal for stopping the lorry and then the accused with a review to cross the lorry, took the side of the lorry and then two persons came on motorbike in opposite direction and accident occurred.
30) It is to be noted that P.W.5 was no other than another person who travelled in the auto of the accused and he deposed that accused driven the auto in a speed manner on the right side instead of left side and dashed two wheeler coming on the left 13 side. If the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 is considered carefully, absolutely, the evidence of P.W.4 is not absolving the accused from the rash and negligent act alleged against him. It means that when a lorry which was moving ahead of the auto gave a signal for stopping, the accused took right side so as to cross the lorry and hit the opposite coming motorbike. So, it means that the coming motorbike opposite to the auto was coming on the left side of the road correctly. It means that while the accused was overtaking a stationed lorry hit the motorbike which was coming ahead of the auto on the left side. This is quietly evident from the evidence of P.W.5. It means that the accused took the auto into the right side of the road and hit the coming motorbike on the left side of the road when the motorbike was moving on the left side. So, these facts and circumstances clinchingly goes to prove that when the motorbike of the deceased and his wife was moving on the left side of the road, the accused so as to overtake the stationed lorry, took right side of the road and hit the motorbike which was coming on the right direction. Absolutely, the evidence of P.W.4 is not at all useful to the defence of the accused, if it is considered carefully.
31) Apart from this, the factum of utter negligence on the part of accused is quietly evident from the evidence of P.W.4 which means that P.W.4 sat by the side of the driver in the auto. He had no business to sit by the side of the driver. Apart from this, even 14 according to the evidence of P.W.5 another person, he was travelling in the auto along with the accused and another boy (P.W.4) and he (P.W.5) sat in front of cabin by the side of the driver and the boy sat between them. So, it means to say that the accused allowed P.W.4 and P.W.5 being the driver of the offending vehicle to sit by the side of him. It is nothing but negligent act. If he allowed P.W.4 and P.W.5 to travel in the cabin, absolutely, he would have no control over the vehicle. Even by leaving all these things, P.W.4 and P.W.5 categorically testified that the accused hit the coming motorbike while trying to overtake the stationed lorry though the deceased and his wife were coming on right direction. The evidence on record clinchingly proves the fact that the accused drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased and his wife when they were coming on the motorbike. These are all quite evident from the evidence available on record.
32) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the appreciation of evidence by both the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge was on right lines. It cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that both the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge dealt with the matter in irregularity. Absolutely, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, 15 Vizianagaram, is sustainable in law and facts and it does not suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.
33) In the light of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits, as such, it is liable to be dismissed.
34) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 02.07.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2008, on the file of Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
35) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 11.03.2024 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant/accused and to report compliance to this Court.
36) The Registry is directed to forward the record along with copy of the order to the trial Court on or before 11.03.2024.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.04.03.2024 Note: L.R. Copy be marked.
B/o PGR 16 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI **** CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1253 OF 2010 Between:
POKALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/o. Sanyasulu, Driver of Goods Auto AP 35 U 3196, R/o. Thalari Village, L.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 04.03.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
Fair copy of the order? Yes/No
______________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
17
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRLRC No.1253 OF 2010
Date: 04.03.2024
Note:
The Registry is directed to forward the record along with copy of the order to the trial Court on or before 11.03.2024.
L.R. copy be marked.
PGR