Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Donthagiri John Babu, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 3 March, 2020
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
Crl.R.C. No. 1283 of 2008
O R D E R:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed against the accused on 26.08.2008 in Crl.A.No. 331 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur wherein conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 03.10.2007 in C.C.No. 277 of 2006 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali, was confirmed.
Originally, the sole accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. By its judgment dated 03.10.2007, the trial Court while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for causing grievous injuries to PW1. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for causing grievous injuries to PW4. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The case of the prosecution is that on 02.08.2016, PWs.1 and 4 boarded a goods carrier Auto bearing No.AP7 TT 9656 at Naarakoduru and both to them sat on the back side of the vehicle.
2 CPK,J CrlRC_1283_2008 At about 11:00 P.M., when the vehicle reached near western side of over-bridge, Tenali-Guntur road, the accused drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and unable to control the vehicle, ran over a heap of stones. As a result of which, the Auto turned turtle and PWs.1 and 4 fell on the road. Both of them sustained simple and grievous injuries. Thereupon, both of them were shifted to Health Hospital, Tenali. On receipt of Ex.P4 - intimation sent by PW5 - Doctor, PW6, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police reached the hospital, recorded the statement of PW1 under Ex.P1, registered a case in Crime No. 215 of 2006 and issued Ex.P5 - F.I.R. PWs.1 and 4, who were the injured, were shifted to Government Hospital, Tenali. PW3 examined both of them and issued Exs.P2 and P3 - wound certificates respectively opining that the injuries sustained by them are simple and grievous in nature respectively. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed which was taken on file as C.C.No. 277 of 2006 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.
On appearance, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished, and thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., to which, he denied the offence.
On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 337 and 338 IPC came to be framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3 CPK,J CrlRC_1283_2008 In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied, but however, he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
Relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.331 of 2007, but the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 cannot be believed and the case of the prosecution has to be viewed with suspicion.
The same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
The fact that PWs.1 and 4 received injuries in the accident amply establishes their presence at the scene of offence. The fact that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the incident cannot also be doubted since PWs.1 and 4 in their evidence categorically deposed about the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle. Though PWs.1 and 4 were cross-examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit their testimony, not only with regard to the accused as driver of the vehicle but also to the manner in which the accident took place. In fact, PWs.1 and 4 4 CPK,J CrlRC_1283_2008 categorically deposed about the accused driving the vehicle in high speed and loosing control over it, as a result of which, all the passengers traveling in the vehicle fell down. The evidence on record shows that PW1 sustained fracture to his right leg while the evidence of PW4 also shows to the same effect. The evidence also reveals that PW4 also sustained fracture to his left leg below the knee. Though both of them were cross-examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit their testimony. Having regard to the above facts, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court rightly convicted the accused. More so, the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW3, the Medical Officer.
Coming to the quantum of sentence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for causing grievous injuries to PW1 and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for causing grievous injuries to PW4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the accident took place in the year 2006 and nearly 14 years have lapsed from the date of the incident, prays to reduce the quantum of sentence of imprisonment by increasing the fine amount or ordering any compensation by virtue of the provision contemplated under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
It is to be noted that as enumerated under Section 338 IPC, issue of punishing negligence is to make a clear distinction between negligence and recklessness and to reserve criminal 5 CPK,J CrlRC_1283_2008 punishment for the later. If the conduct in question involves elements of recklessness, then it is punishable and should not be described as merely negligent. If, however, there is nothing to suggest that the one is aware of the risk deliberately taken, then he is morally blameless and should face at the most, a civil action for damages (Dr.P.B.Desai v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2014 SC 795].
A perusal of the material on record shows that what has elicited in the cross-examination of PW4 was that a heap of stones were located at a distance of four feet from the scene of offence and it was suggested to PW4 that the accused applied brakes to avert the heap, and on account of which, the Auto turned turtle due to skidding. The same was denied by PW4. But the fact remains that the accused lost control over the vehicle and ran over the heap of stones which resulted in vehicle turning turtle, as a result of which, PWs.1 and 4 sustained injuries. Therefore, the presence of heap of stones at the scene of offence stands established. It is no doubt true that both PWs.1 and 4 sustained grievous injuries, but at the same time, one has to take into account the manner in which the accident took place. Having regard to the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006 and as the accused was in jail for sometime, ends of justice would be met if the imprisonment is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him and the fine of Rs.1,000/- is confirmed, however the accused is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to the injured i.e. PWs.1 and 4, as contemplated under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The amount of compensation shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from 6 CPK,J CrlRC_1283_2008 today, in which event, the said amount shall be paid to PWs.1 to 4, in default, original sentence imposed by the Courts below shall stand effected.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 03.03.2020 bcj