Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pulidindi China Veeranna, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 22 April, 2024
APHC010197302010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 753/2010
Between:
Pulidindi China Veeranna, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:
Assailing the judgment dated 08.04.2010 in Crl.A.No.230 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 07.09.2009 in C.C.No.211 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, for the offences under section 304-A, 338, 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and Section 83 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act"), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case 2 under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. The revision case was admitted on 13.04.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1120 of 2010.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). On 08.01.2005, accused being driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 5 AJ 0406-cum-trailer bearing No.AEW 1320, travelling from Nedunuru towards Gopavaram along with coolies twenty eight in number and when he reached Samanasa Lakulu at about 08.30 a.m., drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over the same, resulted the vehicle turned turtle into irrigation canal with coolies.
Thereby, four members died on the spot and remaining coolies sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment, one person succumbed to injures.
ii). Basing on Ex.P.4 report of P.W.33, P.W.44-S.I. of Police, Amalapuram Taluk Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.3 of 2005 for the offences under Section 304(A) and 337 of IPC and investigated into.
3
4. After completion of investigation, P.W.49-Inspector of Police laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.211 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, trial was conducted, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 304-A, 338, 337 of IPC and Section 83 of M.V. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.9,700/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months, for the offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.300/- for the offence under Section 83 of M.V. Act.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.230 of 2009, before the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 08.04.2010, 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 K.Prudviraj, learned counsel representing Sri T.Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Dheera 4 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 K.Prudviraj, learned counsel representing Sri T.Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt; that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner in driver the vehicle; the testimonies of prosecution witnesses is not corroborating with each other; that the Court below erred in convicting the accused and sentenced him to a period of two (2) years for the said offences; 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 vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, caused death of five persons and injuries to twenty three members; that P.Ws.23 to 29 independent witnesses 5 categorically deposed about the identity of the petitioner as driver of the crime vehicle as well his rash and negligent driving; that P.Ws.1 to 7, 10, 12 to 22 categorically testified about the rash and negligent driving of the accused at the time of incident; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence 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 P.Ws.1 to 49 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.41.
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 vehicle in the accident as well death of the deceased persons and injuries to P.Ws.1 to 22 in the incident. It is also not in dispute that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle by the time of incident.
12. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that there is no rash and negligence on his part in causing the incident.
13. In view of the above said contention, it is necessary to refer the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. P.Ws.1 to 22 are said to be injured persons, P.Ws.23, 25 to 28 are said to be eye- witnesses to the incident, P.Ws.24, 29 to 32 are circumstantial witnesses to corroborate the incident, P.Ws.33 to 37 are 6 panchayatdars to the inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased persons five in number, P.W.38 is Motor Vehicle Inspector, P.W.39 to 43 are medical officers, who conducted postmortem over the dead bodies of deceased, P.W.44 to 46, 48 and 49 are the investigating officers and P.W.47 is the medical officer, who treated the injured persons and issued wound certificates.
14. As stated supra, there is no dispute about the death of the deceased persons and injuries to P.Ws.1 to 22 in the incident. The one and only contention of the petitioner is that there is no rash and negligence on his part in causing the incident. As such, now it is relevant to refer the testimony of P.W.1 that on 08.01.2005 at about 08.30 a.m., near Samanasa Lokulu the accident occurred and on that day they all about thirty persons started from Nedunuru in a tractor to go to Challapalli for agricultural operations. The accused was the driver of the said tractor and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, when the tractor reached the accident spot, the same is turned turtle and fell into the water canal. She sustained injuries on her waist and also contusions. About four persons died on the spot and another person died in the hospital. She categorically testified that the accident was 7 occurred only due to the negligence of the accused. The testimony of P.W.1 is fully corroborated and consistent with testimonies of P.Ws.2 to 7, 10, 12 to 22, who are also injured eye-witnesses. Nothing was elicited during the cross examination to disbelieve their testimony.
15. P.W.23, who said to be eye witnesses to the incident, categorically testified that on 08.01.2005 at about 08.30 a.m., at Samanasa Lakulu, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused and he is having kirana shop at that place. His testimony is fully corroborated to the testimony of P.Ws.24 to 32, who are also said to be eye-witnesses and circumstantial witnesses. No material was elicited during cross examination to discredit their trustworthiness.
16. Furthermore, P.W.38-Motor Vehicle Inspector categorically testified that he inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle and issued Ex.P.11 report. The prosecution categorically proves the rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner by examining the above witnesses before the trial Court. Furthermore, it is settled law that the minutest reexamination of whole evidence at the revisional stage is totally oblivious of the self-restraint.
8
17. 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 vehicle in a rash and negligence manner at high speed, resulted death of five persons and injuries to twenty-three persons.
18. 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.
19. 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. 9
20. Coming to the operation of sentence is concerned, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the accident was occurred on 08.01.2005 and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court.
21. But, on the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the said contention and submits that due to the negligent act of the petitioner five persons died and more than twenty persons sustained injuries, as such, no undue sympathy can be shown on the petitioner. In support of his contention, relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur1.
22. No doubt, in the present case the incident was said to be happened on 08.01.2005, but there was a loss of five human lives and injuries sustained by twenty-three persons.
23. Now, it is relevant to make a mention a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dil Bahadur case (referred to supra), wherein the Apex Court referred plethora of its earlier judgments and held at paragraph Nos.16 and 17 as follows:
"16. We again reiterate in this case that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to 1 2023 SC Online SC 348 10 the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of the society.
In a recent decision in State of M.P. v. Bablu [(2014) 9 SCC 281 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 1], after considering and following the earlier decisions, this Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity, nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is, therefore, the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as awarding lesser sentence 11 encourages any criminal and, as a result of the same, the society suffers.
17 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Surendra Singh (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court interfering with the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court by showing undue sympathy to the accused is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
24. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no legally valid grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first Appellate Court, as such, the present criminal revision has no merits. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
25. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 08.04.2010 in Crl.A.No.230 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 12 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 22.03.2024 Krs 13 213 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.753 of 2010 DATE: 22.03.2024 Krs