Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:

On 06.12.2007 at about 7.15 p.m., while PW.2 was returning home after attending tuition and reached the old burial ground at Yadavarru Village, the accused, driving auto No.AP7TU1073 from Tenali at high speed in a rash and negligent manner with manure bags loaded on either side, hit PW.2. As a result, she fell down and sustained bleeding injuries on her right temple, with blood oozing from her mouth and nostrils. PW.3, who was following her, witnessed the incident and informed PW.1, who rushed to the spot and shifted the injured first to an RMP doctor, then to Dr.Ravindrababu Nursing Home, and subsequently to GGH, Guntur, for better treatment. On receipt of Ex.P4, PW.5 visited the hospital, recorded PW.1's statement under Ex.P.1, and forwarded it to Amarthaluru Police Station. PW.6 registered Cr.No.104/2007 under Section 337 IPC vide Ex.P5, examined PWs.1 to 3, recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., inspected the scene, and prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P6. PW.4, who treated PW.2, issued a wound certificate. PW.6 arrested the accused on 03.01.2008 and sent him for remand. Hence, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 338 IPC.

6. The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC as stated supra vide its Judgment, dated 27.10.2009 in C.C.No.330 of 2008 and convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (06) months for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgments of the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court, insofar as they went against the petitioner, are contrary to law, the weight of evidence, and the probabilities of the case; the 1st Appellate Court ought to have allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner instead of partly allowing it; the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper legal perspective, rendering the conviction and sentence unsustainable; the prosecution evidence is insufficient to attract punishment under Section 338 IPC; there is no corroboration between medical evidence and oral testimonies, and both Courts relied on surmises and conjectures rather than reliable evidence;

further, PW.3, an independent witness, did not support the prosecution, and hence the interested testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 ought to have been scrutinized with greater caution; moreover, when PW.4 failed to produce X-ray or scan reports to substantiate the alleged grievous injury, conviction under Section 338 IPC is unjustified.

9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State has, while supporting the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both Courts, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, by letting in valid and cogent evidence and that though the prosecution witnesses are interested witness, their evidence is sufficient to base conviction on the revision petitioner / accused for the offence under section 338 of IPC and that therefore, the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence do not warrant any inference by this Court.