1 APHC010205652014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1369/2014 Between: 1. NANDAVARAPU VENKATA RAO, S/O.AKKUNAIDU, AGED 33 YEARS, D.NO.67-3-147, NEHRU NAGAR, EX-SERVICE COLONY, NEAR COROMANDEL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYD, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1369/2014 O R D E R: 1. Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the concurrent finding of the learned Courts below against the petitioner. Petitioner was convicted under sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian penal Code by the learned Trial Court i.e., III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka in CCNo.239 of 2007 vide Judgment dated 24.01.2013 and said order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka vide Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2013 dated 09.05.2014. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the present petitioner. He submits that there are allegations of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. i.e., the petitioner. P.W.1 was the driver of motor cycle who had two pillion riders at the time of accident. He further submits that it has been alleged in the prosecution case that the petitioner being driver of a heavy vehicle, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle driven by P.W.1 from backside, thereby, two pillion riders fell on the road and sustained severe fatal injuries and died on the spot. It has been alleged that P.W.1 also sustained injuries, but they are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there are no independent witnesses of such accident, except P.W.1. P.W.1 is interested witness who is defacto complainant. 3 His evidence cannot be believed. The prosecution failed to produce any further witnesses who have seen the accident. Other witnesses as produced by the prosecution are not ocular witnesses. They are the technical witnesses such as mahazar witnesses, inquest witnesses and medical officer as well as investigation officer and Motor Vehicle Inspector. None of the witnesses, except P.W.1 stated about the witnessing accident. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be considered for recording conviction and sentence against the present petitioner. He further submits that there are severe lacunae in the case of the prosecution regarding the identification of the accused being driver of the offending vehicle. There was not test identification parade of the accused during the course of investigation of this case. P.W.1 for the first time identified accused at the time of trial on Dock before the Court. The accident happened in the year 2006. Trial commenced after 3 or 4 years of such accident, it was not possible for P.W.1 to identify the accused. He submits that during cross examination of P.W.1 it has been specifically raised by the defence that P.W.1 has had two pillion riders on the motor cycle, also carried hanging heavy bags on the back side of the motor cycle and at that time of accident P.w.1 being the rider of motor cycle, tried to overtake the offending vehicle/lorry which was running on the extreme left side of the road. By that way, the back hanging bags of the motor cycle touched the right side of the lorry, P.w.1 could not control the motor cycle and fell down on the road. 4 It is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the petitioner driven the heavy vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He further submits that there are other lacunae in the prosecution case. At this juncture, the conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has pointed out that during evidence of P.w.1 he has specifically stated that he has seen the accused being driver of the lorry/offending vehicle. During evidence, he identified the accused on Dock. Moreover, from the evidence of P.W.6- Inspector of Police, it appears that after two days of alleged incident i.e., on 25.03.2006, petitioner being the driver, along with owner of the offending vehicle came to police station and surrendered and also placed several documents pertaining to the offending vehicle. He further submits that the evidence of P.W.6 was not challenged by the defence counsel. Moreover, there is no suggestion on behalf of the defence that the accused never drove the vehicle at the time of accident. Accordingly, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the identification of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle was sufficiently proved and the trial court as well as the learned appellate court has rightly decided that accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He further submits that from the entire case of prosecution it would be revealed that P.W.1 is the eyewitness of the accident. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the mahazar witnesses, who were present 5 at the time of inquest over the dead bodies. P.W.4 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies. Wound certificate of petitioner was also placed on record. P.W.7 is the investigation officer of this case and P.W.8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He submits that the entire fact suggests that after the accident P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital with a case of road traffic accident. The victims were expired in road traffic accident, thus the factum of road traffic accident has been sufficiently proved. P.W.1 being witness of the road traffic accident, has sufficiently supported the prosecution case regarding offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has specifically held that P.W.1 being driver of a heavy vehicle should have more cautious to drive the vehicle in a busy traffic area. He further pointed out the observation of the learned trial court wherein he has observed that mere speed is not the parameter of an accident but proper care and caution is required to avoid an accident. He further submits that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court observed accident could be averted if the accused drove the vehicle with little more care and caution. He submits that the case of the prosecution has been sufficiently proved that the petitioner being driver of the offending vehicle could not take proper care and caution while driving he vehicle, thereby two lives were lost. He submits that there are no illegality or impropriety 6 in the judgment and conviction recorded against the present petitioner. Accordingly there is no merit in the instant Criminal Revision Case. 4. Heard learned counsel for both parties. 5. Perused the observation of the learned courts below and also perused the LCR to justify the evidence of P.W.1. It appears that according to the version of P.W.1 the accident happened in the early hours of evening at 6.15 P.M over a busy road which is National Highway – 5. By thorough observation of entire evidence of P.W.1 it appears that he stated before the learned trial court that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner who drove the heavy vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind his motor cycle. It further appears from his evidence that all such circumstances, namely, dashing the motor cycle, fell at a distance of 15 feet from the accident spot, after it was hit by the lorry and it was went towards divider. He has also stated that he saw the driver of the crime vehicle and the petitioner was the driver. From his evidence it appears that 108 Ambulance came to the spot and he was shifted to the Hospital for treatment. He also deposed that the police did not enquire him in the hospital but he appeared in the police station on the same day and lodged the First Information Report. It appears from the evidence of P.W.7 – one of the Investigation Officers that P.W.1 has appeared in the police station at 7.00 P.M and First Information Report was noted, at that time it is surprising to note that the accident was occurred at about 6.15 P.M., First 7 Information Report was lodged by none other than P.W.1 himself at 7.00 P.M.,. Within the mean time the petitioner was treated at hospital, reached thereby through 108 Ambulance, thus the time as mentioned regarding the accident appears to be not justified as stated by the prosecution in its case. i. However, the identity of the petitioner regarding driver of the offending vehicle is not in suspicion as the petitioner/accused being the driver of the offending vehicle has surrendered before the police. Moreover, defence did not suggest to any witnesses that Petitioner was not the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Another factor which was bothered this court after overall observation of the evidence of the prosecution case is that P.W.8 being the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected both the vehicles i.e., offending vehicle and the motor cycle and he deposed before the learned trial court that during his examination of both the vehicles, he found the breaks of both vehicles are in good condition. He found no damage on the lorry, only light scratch on the headlight beam of motor cycle appears. If the case of the prosecution is believed, when a heavy vehicle driven by petitioner in a rash and negligent manner was dashed a motor cycle i.e., light vehicle from behind, back side of the motor cycle must be damaged. Rather, if the circumstances is such that the motor cycle was carrying three persons including P.W.1 and after dashing there may have some disturbed balance of motor cycle but after such dashing is there by heavy vehicle to the motor cycle, at least the backlight of the motor cycle must be damaged, but in this particular case there is no such report by P.W.8. 8 Accordingly, I find there are discrepancies in the case of the prosecution. The front light beam of the motor cycle may be at a little scratch if the motor cycle only fell down over a road. But prosecution as stated above about a heavy accident whereby two pillion riders fell down from motor cycle and died on the spot, that requires a heavy dashing by the vehicle. In the case of prosecution the dashing is from the back side of the motor cycle but such factum could not be proved, rather disputed from the evidence of P.W.8. Under the above observation the case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful. ii. It is submitted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor that no such defence was raised by the petitioner before both the Courts below or before this court. Overall finding of the entire case, it appears that the entire case appears to be doubtful according to the evidence of P.W.8 thus, there is benefit of doubt in favour of accused person. iii. Under the above observation, I find justification to entertain the Criminal Revision Case. The prosecution could not prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the present petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner deserves to be acquired. 6. In the result, the instant criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court, affirmed by the learned appellate count is hereby set aside. Petitioner is hereby set at liberty forthwith. The sureties of petitioner shall stand closed after expiry of six (06) months from the date of this judgment, as per section 437A of Criminal 9 Procedure Code (corresponding section 481 of the BNSS). Fine amount if any, paid by the petitioner shall be returned to the petitioner under due process of law. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:07.01.2026. 10 149 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1369 OF 2014 DATED:07.01.2026. KS