APHC010046292009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1897/2009 Between: 1. CHELLI MANIKYA RAO,, S/O RAMAIAH, R/O KATRAPADU VILLAGE, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, through SHO., Kothapet L&O PS., Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Crl.R.C., aggrieved by the Judgment dt.07-11-2009 made in appeal, Crl.A.No.61 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Guntur. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2659 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 enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the judgment, dt.07-11-2009 on the file of the VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C., Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI CH RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Ld. ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -2- CRL.R.C. No.1897 of 2009 The Court made the following order: 1. Instant criminal revision case has been preferred against judgment, dated 07.11.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, modified the conviction of the petitioner recorded by learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in C.C. No.38 of 2008, dated 29.01.2009. 2. FACTS OF PROSECUTION CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE AS FOLLOWS: 2.1 The petitioner was charged with an offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’). On 26.11.2007, at about 3.45 PM, the petitioner was driving a city bus bearing No.AIL 6939 on Route No.27. While the deceased was proceeding on his Luna moped towards the vegetable market, Guntur, and was passing over the bridge from the Broadipet side, the accused drove the said city bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the moped of the deceased from behind at high speed on the overbridge towards A.C. College. As a result, the deceased fell down from his moped and the rear left wheel of the bus ran over him, resulting in his instantaneous death. The petitioner left the bus at the spot and fled away. P.W.1 lodged a report with the police, pursuant to which Crime No.203 of 2007 -3- CRL.R.C. No.1897 of 2009 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. 2.2 During trial, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked several documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. After considering the prosecution evidence, learned trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 304- A of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. 2.3 The said conviction and sentence were challenged before learned appellate court. After hearing the matter, learned appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A of I.P.C., but reduced the substantive sentence from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year simple imprisonment. Hence, this Revision. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3.1 Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the petitioner. The petitioner was not the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. The identity of the petitioner was never established by the investigating agency through a test identification parade. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and -4- CRL.R.C. No.1897 of 2009 2, who are stated to be direct witnesses, has not corroborated the prosecution case. He further submits that the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.9, cannot be relied upon, as the owner of the bus was not examined. 3.2 Learned counsel further submits that though P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that the petitioner was the driver of the bus, they came to know petitioner’s name only from P.W.5, the conductor. However, the name of the petitioner/ driver was not mentioned in Ex.P.1. He further submits that P.W.5, the conductor, turned hostile. Therefore, findings of learned trial court as well as learned appellate court regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence are illegal and improper. 4. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPEARING FOR THE STATE: 4.1 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that identical submissions was made by learned counsel for petitioner before appellate court which was properly dealt with by learned appellate court by fixing points for determination. After a thorough consideration of the evidence on record, learned appellate court, in paragraphs 14 and 15 of its judgment, held that the prosecution had successfully established that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. Thus, there is no scope to interfere with the findings of learned appellate court. -5- CRL.R.C. No.1897 of 2009 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 6. OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT: 6.1 The prosecution case suggests that, after the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle escaped from the spot. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 had seen the driver. No passenger travelling in the bus was examined. P.Ws.1 and 2, in their depositions, have stated that they came to know from P.W.5, conductor of the bus, that the name of the driver was Manikya Rao. It is true that though P.W.1 lodged the report, but he did not mention the name of the petitioner as the accused/driver of the offending bus. During the evidence of P.W.9, Ex.P.10, i.e., the trip sheet of the offending bus, dated 26.11.2007, was produced before learned trial court and marked in evidence. It is further evident from the testimony of P.W.9-Investigating Officer that after the accident, owner of the bus appeared before the police and produced the petitioner, stating that he was the driver of the offending bus, thereafter petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court. If petitioner was not driver of offending bus, why he voluntarily surrendered before police, moreover it is not a case of defence that petitioner was surrendered before police under any coercion or compulsion. -6- CRL.R.C. No.1897 of 2009 6.2 In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in Nallapalli Seetharamaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, wherein the Coordinate Bench did not place reliance upon the trip sheet of a vehicle. The observation of the Coordinate Bench at paragraph 22 is set out hereunder: “22.…the evidence of PW1 cannot be relied upon for convicting the accused. Once the evidence of PW1 is excluded from consideration, there remains no evidence against the accused. Of course, the seizure of driving licence and trip sheet containing the name of the accused is a strong circumstance against the accused. But, according to PW 12, who seized them, admitted that though he seized documents from the accused, he did not arrest the accused. Non arresting of the accused immediately after the accident create doubt about the seizure of documents from the accused. Moreover, the prosecution did not examine any witness to speak about the contents of those documents. It appears to be not safe to convict the accused on the basis of entries in driving licence and trip sheet. Utmost it may be a strong circumstance to say that the accused was the driver of the lorry. But the same is not sufficient to say that the accused had driven the lorry at the time of accident. There may be several instances wherein some other person may drive the vehicle though the name of the driver is noted in trip sheet.” 6.3 In the case before Coordinate Bench of the common High Court, it appears that the driver has fled away from the spot after the accident. Thereafter, the driving licence and trip sheet were seized from the accused/driver; however, the police did not arrest him raises a serious doubt in the mind of the coordinate Bench. 1 2010(1) ALD (Crl.) 18 (AP) -7- CRL.R.C. No.1897 of 2009 6.4 In the present case, the accused/driver of the offending vehicle was surrendered before the police. The trip sheet collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation was marked as Ex.P.10 without objection. Moreover, no suggestion was put to P.W.9 during cross-examination disputing or contradicting Ex.P.10. Learned appellate court considered this aspect and held that the evidence of P.W.9, coupled with the contents of Ex.P.10, was sufficient to establish that the petitioner was driving the offending bus at the relevant point of time. 6.5 I have categorically observed the findings made by learned appellate Court in paragraph 15 of its judgment. The findings recorded by appellate court are proper and justifiable in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, particularly since Ex.P.10 was not disputed by the defence during the cross- examination of P.W.9 and there is no other material on record contradicting the same. Moreover, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborative in nature. Thus, at this juncture, I find that the observation of learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, holding that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time, is justified. 6.6 The order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby sustained. However, it appears that the criminal proceedings -8- CRL.R.C. No.1897 of 2009 have been pending since 2008 and nearly two decades have elapsed. 6.7 In Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police2, a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that sending a convict to prison after a prolonged delay from the date of the incident is harsh and unjust. Accordingly, a lenient approach may be adopted in the matter of sentencing, as the accused has already suffered the ordeal of prolonged litigation. 6.8 Following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to take a lenient view in favour of the petitioner. Considering the long pendency of the criminal litigation, the conviction recorded by learned trial Court and modified by learned appellate Court is hereby sustained, but substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is modified to a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 6.9 The petitioner is directed to pay the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) before learned trial court within four weeks from the date of passing of this order. Failing such payment, the sentence imposed by learned trial court and modified by learned appellate Court shall continue in accordance with law. 2 2021 Supreme(SC) 298 -9- CRL.R.C. No.1897 of 2009 7. Under the above observation, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is hereby modified. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of. 8. Petitioner has to file a memo in the registry showing the payment of fine amount within six weeks from the date of passing of the order. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.01.10.2026 BV