Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A convict/accused presented this criminal revision case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. questioning the correctness of judgments of two Courts below.

2. An automobile accident occurred on 03.07.2002 resulted in death of one person and injuries to eight persons. The vehicle involved was an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-02-U- 3142. The incident occurred during broad day light at 9:30 A.M. at a place that was about 5 K.Ms. away from Rayadurg. At the relevant point this revision petitioner was stated to be driving the said auto rickshaw with 15 passengers in it. One of the injured/PW.3, who was shifted to Government Hospital, Rayadurg, gave his statement to police as per Ex.P.11 and Rayadurg Police acting upon it registered Crime No.46 of 2002 and investigated into the case and found the auto driver/ revision petitioner was responsible for the crime incident and laid charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg, who thereupon took cognizance for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304 I.P.C. and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. While the crime incident Dr. VRKS, J occurred on 03.07.2002 the accused was arrested on 01.10.2002. Trial Court summoned him and he duly appeared and he was defended by his own learned counsel when he was furnished with copies of documents in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Crime alleged allegations were put to him under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the truth of the allegations and pleaded not guilty. That made the prosecution to introduce the evidence in the form of PWs.1 to 12 and Exs.P.1 to P.14. Witnesses were duly cross-examined in defence of the accused. The learned Magistrate having found incriminating material, he confronted the same to the accused and sought for his explanations as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused responded by mere denial stating that the evidence led against him was false. When he was informed of his right to have any evidence in his defence, he reported no such evidence.

9. Causing death by doing an act with the intention of causing death is 'culpable homicide'. However, causing death by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to 'culpable homicide' is made an offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. Causing grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger to human life or the personal safety of others is made an offence under Section 338 I.P.C. and causing hurt to any person by doing any act as to endanger to human life or the personal safety of others, it is made an offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C. It is in the context of these legal mandates, the conduct attributed to the revision petitioner has to be seen. The sequence of events that emerged at the trial are to the effect that with 15 passengers on board this revision petitioner was driving his auto rickshaw at high speed and it was going on the road and this revision petitioner noticed a jeep Dr. VRKS, J coming in the opposite direction and his auto rickshaw was reaching near a culvert where the road is a little narrower. The version of the witnesses was that both the auto rickshaw as well as the opposite coming jeep were moving in such uncontrollable manner because of their speed and the revision petitioner drove his auto rickshaw towards right side and the auto turned turtle and fell into a ditch. It is this aspect of the matter that was consistently spoken to by all the witnesses excepting one. All the material witnesses were passengers in the vehicle. They testified as PWs.3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The above act of the accused was also stated to be rash or negligent by the witnesses. However, PW.11 stated that there was no such rashness or negligence on part of the revision petitioner.

11. Having gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court as well as that of the learned first appellate Court, a few aspects are to be stated here.

12. The learned trial Court recorded the evidence of injured witnesses and recorded the evidence of the doctor who treated them and considered the wound certificates in Exs.P.1 to P.7. Throughout its judgment it did not make a mention as to which of these injured suffered grievous hurt attracting Section 338 I.P.C. and which of the injured suffered simple hurt attracting Section 337 I.P.C. Without rendering any finding it simply went on to convict the accused under both the provisions of law. This lapse was specifically contended before the learned first appellate Court. It is unfortunate that the learned first appellate Court/Sessions Judge having noted down such contentions did not feel to bestow any attention on that aspect. He neither recorded a clear finding of fact attracting each of those two provisions nor stated anything. Except mentioning the contention of the accused nothing was done. It is in the context of these facts, the contention of the revision petitioner Dr. VRKS, J that it is illegal and irregular to convict the revision petitioner under both the provisions of law, I find merit in it. Since the evidence on record established hurt to eight individuals and since there is no specific finding on record indicating which of the injuries of which of these injured was grievous in nature, this Court shall find the revision petitioner not guilty for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. and to that extent the judgments of both the Courts below shall be set aside. Since the evidence indicated hurt to the injured, which was supported by medical evidence, the same shall be considered as simple hurt and in that view of the matter, the finding of guilt conviction and sentence rendered by the Courts below for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. shall be confirmed. Thus, both the points are answered accordingly.

13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part confirming the judgment dated 27.08.2008 of learned Sessions Judge, Anantapur in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2006 so far as the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. are concerned. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. and to that extent the judgment of the first appellate Court shall be set aside and fine Dr. VRKS, J of Rs.500/- shall be refunded to the revision petitioner/accused by the learned trial Court on a duly made application by the revision petitioner.