Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Padala Sattibabau vs The State Of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P on 29 April, 2024
APHC010257852011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1647/2011
Between:
Padala Sattibabau ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap Rep Byits P P ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K B RAMANNA DORA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Assailing the judgment dated 04.07.2011 in Crl.A.No.245 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 28.11.2008 in C.C.No.722 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru, 2 for the offences under section 304-A, 338, 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. The revision case was admitted on 11.08.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2439 of 2011.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). On 12.06.2005 at about 02.30 A.M., the accused being driver of the Mini Van bearing No. AP 5U 1241, while proceeding to Vijayawada along with marriage party i.e., P.Ws.1 to 17 and others, when they reached the outskirts of Vatluru in N.H.5 Bye-pass Road, driven the same in a rash and negligence manner, lost control over the same. As a result, the said Mini Van turned the turtle into the left side ditch, P.Ws.1 to 17 and others, who were travelling as passengers in the van sustained severe injuries. While undergoing treatment, Mamidi Suribabu, Kuramdasu Appayamma and Kuramdasu Veeraraju (hereinafter referred to them as "deceased") succumbed to the injuries.3
ii). Based on Ex.P.1 statement of P.W.1, P.W.29-S.I. of Police, Pedapadu Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.85 of 2005 for the offences under Section 304(A), 338 and 337 of IPC and investigated into.
4. After completion of investigation, P.W.30-Inspector of Police, Eluru Rural Circle, laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.722 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of ten (10) days, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of five (5) days, also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two (2) days, for the respective offences and all the sentences shall run concurrently. However, the accused found not guilty of the offence under Section 134(a) & (b) of Motor Vehicles Act as he is not absconded after the accident, himself received injury and admitted in the hospital.
4
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.245 of 2008, before the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 04.07.2011, 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.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera 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.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the testimony of P.W.1 is not believable; that the alleged act committed by the accused is not direct result of rash and negligence; that mere speed of vehicle is not a criteria for determining the rash and negligence of the vehicle; that both the Courts below based on the presumptions 5 and assumptions only convicted the petitioner; that there is no identification of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle; 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 P.Ws.1 to 17, who are injured eye-witnesses testified about the rash and negligent act of the petitioner; that Ex.P.4 photographs and Ex.P.6 scene observation report shows the speed, rash and negligent driving of the petitioner; that the injured eye-witnesses testified in their evidence about the identity of the petitioner as driver of the crime vehicle by 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 30 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.36.
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 6 the deceased persons, injuries to P.Ws.1 to 17 and others in the incident.
12. The contentions raised by the petitioner are that there is no rash and negligence on his part in causing the incident and that he was not identified as driver of the said vehicle by the time of incident.
13. As stated supra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that mere speed of the vehicle is not criteria for determining the rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner. This Court is also conceded with the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but it is settled law that in the absence of any material on record to prove the rash and negligence only, the said presumption can be taken into consideration.
14. In the present case on hand, to prove the rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner, prosecution placed the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 17, who are said to be injured eyewitnesses to the incident. As per the testimony of P.W.1, he engaged the crime vehicle for the purpose of transportation of marriage party consisting thirty-five (35) persons and he was traveling in the cabin of the said vehicle and by the time reached Vatluru Bridge on 12.06.2005 at about 02.30 a.m., the 7 said van turned turtle as the accused drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without hearing their warning. Himself, deceased persons, and others sustained injuries. Police recorded his statement. The testimony of P.Ws.2 to 17, who are other injured eyewitnesses, is fully corroborated to the testimony of P.W.1 and they all testified in one voice that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused at high speed. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve their testimony.
15. Furthermore, on perusal of Ex.P.4 photographs of scene of offence show that the crime vehicle was rolled out from the road and fell in the fields situated by the side of the road and one of the photographs in Ex.P.4 consistently shows that two rear side wheels of the crime vehicle were completely detached from the vehicle.
16. On perusal of Ex.P.6 scene observation report, which is drafted in the presence of P.Ws.19 and 20 mediators, shows that the road was twenty-four (24) feet, and the road margin is five (5) feet and the crime vehicle is at a distance of hundred (100) feet from the southern edge of the road. P.Ws.19 and 20 categorically testified about their presence while drafting Ex.P.6 8 report and except bare suggestions, nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve their testimonies and Ex.P.6.
17. Moreover, as per the testimony of the P.W.25 Motor Vehicle Inspector, he found six pieces of damage and mentioned the same in Ex.P.10 report issued by him. His testimony remains unchallenged by the accused.
18. On perusal of Ex.P.10, it is very clear that on inspection of the crime vehicle P.W.25 found the following damages:
i) Front right side end bumper damaged;
ii) Driver side door bended and twisted;
iii) Rear view mirror driver side broken;
iv) Wind screen glass broken;
v) Rear left side tyre punctured and disc bended and
vi) Rear Wheel (LSR) main two leap springs broken.
19. The above all material placed on record coupled with testimonies of prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to 17 as discussed supra clearly and vividly shows the rash and negligent act of the accused in driving the vehicle at such a high speed. More so, it is not the contention of the petitioner that there is any amount of enmity to depose against him by P.Ws.1 to 17. Thereby, the trial Court as well first Appellate Court rightly appreciated the material on record and concluded that 9 the crime vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the same, resulted the incident.
20. Now coming to the identity of the petitioner as driver of the crime vehicle by the time of incident is concerned, prosecution relied upon the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 17, who are injured eyewitnesses. P.W.1 testified that himself hired the accused for his marriage at Kanakadurgamma Temple, Vijayawada and the remaining injuries persons i.e., P.Ws.2 and 17 categorically testified about the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle by the time of incident. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to prove his defense.
21. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the testimony of P.W.1 is not reliable that he was sitting in the cabin of the vehicle along with accused, P.Ws.8 and 9 even though the seating capacity is three in number. The said contention has no legs to stand as it does not affect the identity of the accused being driver of the vehicle by the time of incident, even P.Ws.1, 8 and 9 categorically testified about the identity of the accused, rash and negligent act while driving the vehicle. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution categorically proved the identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident.
10
22. Furthermore, it is settled law that the minutest reexamination of whole evidence at the revisional stage is totally oblivious of the self-restraint when there is concurrent finding of fact.
23. 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 three persons and injuries to more than seventeen persons.
24. 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.
25. 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 11 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.
26. 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 12.06.2005 and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court.
27. 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 three persons died and more than seventeen 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.
28. No doubt, in the present case the incident was said to have happened on 12.06.2005, but there was a loss of three 1 2023 SC Online SC 348 12 human lives and injuries sustained by more than seventeen persons.
29. 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 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 13 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 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.
30. 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. 14
31. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 04.07.2011 in Crl.A.No.245 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 29.04.2024 Krs 15 112 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1647 of 2011 DATE: 29.04.2024 Krs