APHC010574152009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1186/2009 Between: PASUPUREDDY KANNA RAO, S/O. APPANNA R/O. YELLAPUVANIPALEM, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF A P, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased toto present this Memorandum of Crl. Revision case filed against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.87 of 2007 on the file of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Visakhaptnam, dt. 13.06.2009 as confirmed in CCNo.201/2005 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, dt. 01.08.2007 IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1610 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filling of the certified copy of the Judgement in CCNo.201/2005 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, dt. 01.08.2007 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2009 Dated 22.12.2025 IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1625 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed in Crl.A.No. 87/2007 on the file of the IV Addl.Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dt.13.6.2009 and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Counsel for the Petitioner: KALAPALA DOONDI MAHARAJ Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2009 Dated 22.12.2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1186/2009 ORDER: Assailing an order passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.No.87 of 2007, whereby he confirmed an order of sentence and conviction imposed by the learned Trial Court against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘the IPC’)., the present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are several discrepancies in the case of prosecution. The prosecution could not bring home the charge against the present petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is erroneous. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the evidence of PW.s placed by the prosecution one after another. He placed the evidence of PW.1 and stated that he never named the accused either in the FIR or during his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. First time, PW.1 identified the accused before the Court after two years of the alleged accident. He submits that identification of the accused before the Court for the first time, without going through the procedure of Test Identification Parade during investigation, 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2009 Dated 22.12.2025 is fatal to the prosecution case by such a way prosecution cannot successfully identify the accused through PW.1. 4. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW.1 shows that PW.1, along with other persons, was present at the time of the alleged accident, but other than PW.1, no witnesses from the surrounding vicinity were examined by the prosecution to justify the factum of the accident. He further submits that the evidence of PW.1 is not sufficient proof of rash and negligent driving of the driver, i.e., the present petitioner, of the alleged offending vehicle. 5. He further submits that PW.2, who is said to be the owner of the offending vehicle, has not placed any documentary evidence before the Court to show that the accused was employed to run the offending vehicle on the day of the accident. He further submits that the other witnesses, i.e., PWs.3 and 4, are not supporting the prosecution case. The seizure witness has specifically stated that his evidence was collected by the police under coercion. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the evidence of PW.6, i.e., the autopsy surgeon, cannot be believed, as during evidence, it was he stated that the autopsy surgeon conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of another person. He further submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have erroneously recorded the order of conviction without following the procedure of law. Thus, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2009 Dated 22.12.2025 7. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Satish1 has specifically pointed out regarding the principle of high speed. Wherein, the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “Merely because the truck was being driven at a „high speed‟ does not bespeak of either „negligence‟ or „rashness‟ by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by „high speed‟. High speed is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by „high speed‟ in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a decision of a Single Bench of the Telangana High Court passed in Crl.R.C.No.1602 of 2007, wherein, in similar circumstances, the learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court held that, without following a Test Identification Parade during investigation, if the accused is identified during evidence after a prolonged period, without prior identification, that should not be a basis of conviction. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “No Test Identification parade was conducted prior to the identification of the petitioner/accused by PW.1 before the Court. ordinarily, identification of an accused for the first time in the court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the Test Identification Parade. Test Identification Parade is a 1 (1998) 8 SCC 493 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2009 Dated 22.12.2025 check valve to the evidence of identification in Court of an accused by a witness. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapture what a witness had seen earlier, strength/trustworthiness of the evidence of identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in the Court. If a witness identifies the accused in Court for the first time, a probative value of such any corroborated evidence becomes so much minimal so that it becomes, as a rule of prudence but not as a rule of law, unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence. Further, the subject accident took place in the year 2002 and the prosecution witnesses identified petitioner/accused for the first time in the Court in the year 2005. Belated identification of an accused in Court for the first time after more than three years from the date of incident should not form the basis of conviction, especially when the same is not corroborated by either previous statement or before the police or any other evidence.” 9. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is surprising in the prosecution case that none of the parents of the deceased, who was aged 14 years, were examined or informed by the investigating agency regarding the accident. He further submits that the present accused is about 66 years old and bedridden, and the accident happened in the year 2005, and therefore prayed for leniency. 10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge against the present petitioner. He 7 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2009 Dated 22.12.2025 submits that, to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. PW.1 is the eyewitness of the alleged accident, who specifically deposed before this Court how the accident happened. He also deposed that, at the time of the accident, the petitioner was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. He again submits that PW.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Moreover, he deposed that the accused was the driver at the time of the accident. During cross-examination, such evidence was not challenged. Moreover, though no evidence has been placed on record by PW.2 regarding the running of the tipper lorry, such a question was never raised during cross-examination. He further submits that the evidence of the mediator and the witness of the inquest cannot be questioned. He submits that the doctor was examined as PW.6. Though he has deposed regarding the requisition of different dead body at the time of autopsy sent, the postmortem report regarding the deceased was identified and marked as Ex.P11. He submits that the driving of the accused of the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged accident is not under challenge. Moreover, the accused was successfully identified by the witnesses. Thus, the order of conviction is justified. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire evidence placed on record. 12. It appears that PW.1 appeared before the learned Trial Court as the sole eyewitness of the accident. On scanning the prosecution case regarding 8 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2009 Dated 22.12.2025 PW.1, it appears that PW.1 has stated that the accident happened at about 10:00 hours at night. PW.1 also stated in his deposition that, at that time, the offending vehicle (lorry) was being driven at high speed, thereby the victim, who was riding a cycle, was dashed and dragged through a considerable distance. PW.1 further stated that he was standing near a soda shop along with his friend. After scanning the evidence of PW.1, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court are of the view that the evidence of PW.1 is justifiable to assess the rash and negligent driving of the accused. 13. Now, the question was raised before this Court that 1. Whether evidence of PW.1 is sufficient or just liable evidence to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? and 2. Whether it has been sufficiently proved that the petitioner being the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle at that time? 14. The proof of criminal jurisprudence in a case under Section 304(A) of ‘the IPC’ requires strict proof. First of all, let me access whether it has been sufficiently proved by the prosecution regarding the driving of the offending vehicle by the present petitioner. The alleged accident occurred in the year 2005 at 10:00 PM. PW.1 stated that he has seen the accident, and for the first time, he stated before the Court during his evidence in the year 2007 that the accused is the person who was driving the vehicle. 15. During the course of investigation, the accused himself surrendered before the police station. PW.2 is the employer of the accused, who stated that the accused was driving the lorry at that time. Though in this case there 9 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2009 Dated 22.12.2025 are material irregularities regarding the proof of driving the vehicle by the accused, the entire circumstances show that, though there was no Test Identification Parade during the course of investigation, but as the petitioner himself surrendered before the police station, it shows that he was the driver of the offending vehicle. There is no justification to raise any point of doubt at this juncture. Accordingly, I am of the clear view that the prosecution has successfully proved that the petitioner was driving the lorry at the time of the accident. The non-compliance of the Test Identification Parade during the course of investigation is not fatal to the prosecution case to identify the present petitioner as the accused in this case. 16. In considering proof of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the petitioner, it appears from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Satish” (supra), that speed of a vehicle is not a guiding factor to assess rash and negligent driving. If we readily believe the evidence of PW.1 in this case, who already stated that at that time, the petitioner was driving the vehicle at speed, the peculiar facts of the prosecution case suggest that the victim boy was also riding a bicycle. The manner of the accident, that is, from which side the victim was coming and from which side the lorry was coming, was not stated either in the F.I.R. or by PW.1. Moreover, the particular speed of offending vehicle and particular manner of the accident were not appearing in prosecution case. Originally, a lorry when running on the road may have some certain speed, and it cannot control its speed if someone suddenly appear 10 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2009 Dated 22.12.2025 before the lorry. The circumstances of the accident, that is, how the accident happened and how the victim, who was riding the bicycle, appeared suddenly before the lorry, have not been stated either in the F.I.R. or by PW.1. After scanning the evidences on record, the learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court are of the view that the present petitioner drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 17. On perusing the entire evidences on record, as well as the opinion of the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court, it appears to me that the accident happened at about 10:00 hours at night, wherein the locality was not so busy. So, at that time, the lorry over the road may have been running at considerable speed. The manner of the accident, that is, how the victim suffered the accident, was not properly mentioned in the prosecution case or by PW.1 before the learned Trial Court. 18. Considering the same, it appears that the driving of offending vehicle by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident was not proved. Rashness and negligent driving by accused required to be proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. In this case, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge to the effect that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, in my view, there are other discrepancies in the prosecution case. Though the Doctor, being PW.6, has exhibited the postmortem report of the deceased, during the evidence he stated before the Court that he was requisitioned to make 11 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2009 Dated 22.12.2025 autopsy over the dead body of another person. The prosecution case also has other discrepancies regarding the investigation conducted by PW.7. Thus, in my view, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the sentence against the Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 22.12.2025 PRA