Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ambati Dhanakumar, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And Nother, on 15 December, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1030 OF 2009
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), came to be filed by the petitioner, who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (for short, the 'learned Additional Sessions Judge'), challenging the judgment therein, dated 19-06-2009, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant but modified the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of six months awarded by the trial Court as that of three months and confirmed the rest of the judgment, dated 30.10.2008, in C.C. No.24 of 2005 of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram (for short, the 'learned Magistrate').
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
2
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009
3. The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.1 of 2005 alleging the offences under Sections 304(A) and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
On 06.01.2005 evening, one Mallipudi Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, who is the contractor at Kakinada, approached the de-facto complainant Pemmadi Nookaraju, who is a resident of Kakinada, to come to Ramachandrapuram for loading the generator on the van and bargained for Rs.500/-. The said Nookaraju is doing loading and unloading work on boats. The said Nookaraju engaged Pinapothu Kasulaiah (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), Pemmadi Srinu, Palepu Sathibabu, Kaladi Krishna and Kaladi Sathiraju for loading the same. The contractor M.S.V.Satyanarayana arranged a van bearing No.AP 31-V-1839 driven by Punyamanthula Rajesh. All of them left Kakinada at 04:00 PM. The contractor Satyanarayana and Garlapati Satyanarayana were travelling in the cabin, whereas the de-facto complainant and other five workers engaged by him were travelling on the body of the van. At about 05:00 PM when the van reached Chodavaram village, the accused, who was driving the Lorry bearing No.AP7-V-4113 from the side of Ramachandrapuram to 3 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009 Velangi, in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, dashed against the van in opposite direction and dragged the deceased, who caught hold of the right side angular of the van, resulting in his instantaneous death. As a result of hit, the driver of the van was unable to control it and went towards the left side fields and leaned aside as a result the remaining eight persons including the driver sustained injuries. On receipt of the hospital intimation on 06.01.2005 at 06:30 PM, the Head Constable P.S.C. Satyanarayana Murthy of Ramachandrapuram rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of Pemmadi Nookaraju and handed over the same to Sub-Inspector of Police P.V.Ramana, who in turn registered the same as a case in Cr.No.1 of 2005 under Sections 304(A) and 337 IPC at 07:45 PM and investigated into. Having inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, got drafted the scene of observation report and took photographs and prepared a rough sketch. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. On 11.01.2005, he arrested the accused and enlarged him on bail. The Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected both the vehicles and issued a report opining that the accident was not due to mechanical defect of any of the vehicles. Dr.N.V.Ramana Murthy, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Ramachandrapuram, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the 4 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009 deceased and issued certificate opining that the deceased died due to hemorrhage shock, head injury and fracture of multiple bones. Dr. T.Durga Raju, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Ramachandrapuram, examined the injured and issued certificate opining that the injuries are simple in nature. Hence, the charge sheet.
4. On perusing the material on hand, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offences under Sections 304(A) and 337 IPC.
5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to the accused in compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C and thereafter he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offences under Sections 304(A) and 337 IPC, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, during the course of trial, examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-23.
7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the 5 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009 incriminating circumstances in the evidence and he denied the same and stated that he has no defence evidence.
8. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, on hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 304(A) and 337 IPC and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 IPC in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.
9. As against the above said judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner herein filed Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2008 before the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, who by modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 304(A) IPC as that of three months instead of six months, dismissed the rest of the Appeal.
6
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009
10. Challenging the same, the unsuccessful appellant therein, filed this Criminal Revision Case.
11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2008, dated 19.06.2009, by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety?
12. Sri M.S.P. Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that PWs.1 to 3 clearly admitted in cross-examination that on account of sitting in the cabin of the van, there was no possibility to see opposite vehicles for them and the Court below did not appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and, according to the evidence of PW.3, the driver of the van, which was alleged to have been hit by the lorry, there was no fault on the part of the driver of the lorry and the learned trial Judge as well as the appellate Judge did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective, as such Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.
13. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutor, sought to support the judgment of the 7 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009 trial Court on the ground that PWs.1 and 2, direct witnesses, fully supported the case of the prosecution and the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident and he hit the van with lorry by his rash and negligent act and there are other witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution, as such the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence on record. With the above said contention, he sought to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.
14. The case of the prosecution is that Mallipudi Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana was the contractor at Kakinada. He approached de-facto complainant to come to Ramachandrapuram for loading the generator on the van. Nookaraju used to do loading and unloading works. So, Nookaraju engaged the deceased viz., Pinapothu Kasulaiah and others. All of them started to travel in a van bearing No.AP 31-V-1839 driven by Punyamanthula Rajesh. It is the allegation that accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 7-V-4113 driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the opposite coming van, which resulted into the death of the deceased and further every person in the van received injuries. This is substance of the case of the prosecution. 8
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009
15. PW.1 before the Court below is the de-facto complainant who testified the fact that Garlapati Satyanarayana entrusted loading work of Generator and he engaged a van bearing No.AP 31-V-1839 and on 06.01.2005 at 03:00 PM, he along with the deceased Kasulaiah, P. Srinu, K. Krishnaiah, Kalasi Sathi Babu left Kakinada in the said van to Ramachandrapuram. When they reached Chodavaram, a lorry bearing No.AP 7-V-4113 came from Ramachandrapuram at a high speed without blowing horn, hit the van and dragged Kasulaiah, to a long distance, who was standing on the right side of the body of the lorry by holding the angular. It dragged Kasulaiah to a distance of 20 yards. Then the driver of the van turned aside towards left side and fell on the bund of the paddy field. Kasulaiah died then and there. He (PW.1) sustained injuries. Accused was the driver of the lorry by then. He gave Ex.P-1 report to the Police.
16. PW.2, who claimed to have travelled in the van, spoken to the fact that the driver of the lorry came in opposite direction and hit the van, which resulted into the death of the deceased. Evidence of PW.2 supported the evidence of PW.1 on material aspects.
9
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009
17. PW.3, the driver of the van, deposed that he found some people nearby the pan shop, as such he swerved right then towards left and he noticed a lorry coming in opposite direction and a cyclist who was proceeding on the left side of the lorry. So, in order to avoid hitting the cyclist the driver of the lorry came towards right and hit to the right side of the van. He has spoken about the death of the deceased and receipt of injuries by him and others.
18. As seen from the cross-examination of PW.1, absolutely, the accused did not dispute that he was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident in question. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not state before Police about the identity of the driver of the lorry. He has no proper acquaintance with the driver. He travelled in the body of the lorry. The lorry was proceeding in the right side from Ramachandrapuram to Kakinada. He does not know whether the driver of the van took a turn to avoid hit to the people. He denied that accident took place when the driver of the van in order to avoid for hitting the people took a turn. It is to be noticed that in the entire cross- examination, accused did not dispute that he was the driver of the lorry. Similarly, during the course of cross-examination of PW.2, 10 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009 accused did not dispute that he was the driver of the lorry. When that is the situation the contention of revision petitioner in the grounds of revision that the prosecution did not conduct test identification of the accused deserves no merit.
19. Admittedly, PW.3, who was the driver of the van, for obvious reasons best known deposed certain answers in cross- examination as if there is no fault on the part of the accused. The Court below gave a finding that originally the cross-examination of PW.3 was not done on the date of chief-examination and after the witness was put into box for cross-examination, he deposed certain answers in favour of the defence.
20. This Court would like to make it clear that though the prosecution did not seek to cross-examine PW.3 but the evidence in chief-examination and cross-examination of PW.3 goes to show that for obvious reasons he wanted to give a clean chit to the accused as if there was no fault on his part. So, his chief- examination is such that they six in number started from Kakinada to Ramachandrapuram on 06.01.2005 when they reached Narasapurapupeta near pan shop as there were some people he took right side and then left then they found a lorry coming in opposite direction. Then a cyclist was proceeding. The 11 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009 driver of the lorry to avoid in hitting the cyclist took right side as a result the lorry hit the right side of the van. During the course of cross-examination, on behalf of the accused, he deposed that he did not state before Police about the driver of the lorry coming towards right in order to avoid hitting the cyclist. So, it is the accused who elicited from the mouth of PW.1 that the evidence spoken by him on crucial aspects giving a clean chit to the accused was not spoken by him before the Police in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.3 was nothing but an attempt to sympathize the accused and having gone through the evidence of PW.3, virtually there is no dispute about the fact that the accused driven the vehicle and hit the van of PW.3 in which PWs.1 and 2 were travelling. So, by virtue of the above evidence the fact that the accused was the driver of the lorry is not in dispute and the defence of accused before PWs.1 and 2 is nothing but evasive.
21. Turning to the evidence of PW.4, who is one of the injured witnesses, has spoken to the fact that when he was travelling in the van along with others, the lorry came in opposite direction and hit the van as such he received injuries.
12
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009
22. Similar is the evidence of PWs.5 and 6. PW.5, one of the injured witnesses, supported the case of the prosecution.
23. PW.7 has spoken to the fact that the lorry was coming from the side of the Ramachandrapuram to Kakinada and a van was coming from Kakinada with some passengers. The driver of the lorry hit the van and a person from the van fell down, received injuries and died on the spot.
24. PW.8 is the mahazar witness who was present at the time of scene of offence observation report.
25. PW.9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who examined the crime vehicle and opined that the accident was not occurred due to mechanical defect.
26. PWs.10 and 11 are the Medical Officers who have spoken about the injuries on PWs.1 to 5 and others.
27. PW.12 is the Photographer, who took Exs.P-14 to P-20.
28. PW.13 is the Investigating Officer.
29. By virtue of the evidence adduced, the prosecution has cogently established the fact that the accused was the driver of the 13 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009 lorry at the time of incident in question. Evidence of PWs.1 and 2 goes to reveal that the lorry came in opposite direction with all speed and hit the van and the deceased who was on the top of the van fell down due to such hitting and died instantaneously and due to that PWs.1 to 5 received injuries. Though a deliberate attempt was made by PW.3 to show some sympathy towards the accused but the improvement made by PW.3 so as to help the accused cannot stand to the test of scrutiny. Apart from this, PWs.4, 5, 6 and 7 supported the case of the prosecution. It is to be noticed that the defence of the accused before the prosecution witnesses is nothing but evasive. There were no probabilities in the defence of the accused, in my considered view. The accused for obvious reasons did not deny that he was the driver of the vehicle but he set forth a defence that the driver of the vehicle to avoid hitting the people took a turn and in that process accident took place. The above said defence of the accused is not at all probable. So, virtually the defence of the accused was evasive and he was not at all emphatic in his evidence. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent and proves the fact that the accused driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the opposite coming van as a result of which the deceased died and several persons received injuries. 14
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009
30. A perusal of the judgment of the Court below shows that the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram rightly appreciated the evidence on record and further the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari District at Rajahmundry also rightly appreciated the evidence on record. As against the judgment of the appellate Court reducing the imprisonment from six months to three months, there is no Appeal or Revision. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety, as such I see no merit in the Criminal Revision Case.
31. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
32. 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 19.12.2022 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner in C.C. No.24 of 2005, dated 30.10.2008, and report compliance to this Court. A copy of this order be placed before the 15 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009 Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date :15.12.2022 DSH