APHC010231402012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2522/2012 Between: 1. GARAPATI VENKATESWARLU @ VENKAT, E.G.DT.,, S/O. SUBBANNA R/O. RAJAPUDI VILLAGE, JAGAAMPET MANDAL, E.G.DISTRICT., ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP REP BY PP HYD, Rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...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 Crl.R.C., aggrieved by the judgment in C.A.No.377 of 2010 dated 12-12-2012 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, confirming the judgment of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, in C.C.No.557 of 2008, dated 21-10-2010. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 3790 OF 2012 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 the sentences passed by the Addl. J.M.F.C., Peddapuram, in C.C.No.557 of 2008 dated 21-10-2008 as confirmed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada in -2- CRL.R.C. No.2522 OF 2012 Date of order:13.03.2026 C.A.No. 377 of 2010 dated 12-12-2012 and release the petitioner on bail, pending Crl.RC. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: -3- CRL.R.C. No.2522 OF 2012 Date of order:13.03.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 2522 OF 2012 ORDER: 1. The instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the Judgment dated 12.12.2012 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, in Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2010, whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, in C.C.No.557 of 2008, vide judgment dated 19.10.2010, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this particular case though the prosecution has placed as many as 15 witnesses, the parents and other close relatives of the deceased, who were deposed as P.Ws.1 to 5, have gone hostile. The other witnesses so called to be direct witnesses have not stated anything against the present petitioner regarding driving offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. He further submits that evidence of P.Ws.7, 8 and 10 did not speak about the rash and negligent driving of the present -4- CRL.R.C. No.2522 OF 2012 Date of order:13.03.2026 petitioner. He further submits that inspite of the fact of non supporting the prosecution case by the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court has held that the evidence of all prosecution witnesses are consistent in nature. He also submits that the learned appellate court also failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and thereby the order of conviction and sentence is required to be set aside. Another point was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigating officer was not examined by the prosecution, thus the defence has no scope to contradict the version of prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the prosecution case cannot be said to be proved. 3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that there are eye witnesses of such incident. The evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 are clearly speaks regarding the driving of the offending vehicle by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner. He further submits that the learned trial court has specifically perused the evidence on record and justifiably recorded the conviction against the present petitioner. He further submits that non- examination of investigating officer is not fatal to the prosecution case. There are no doubts during the examination of the prosecution witnesses and recording their statement before the police during the course of investigation. Therefore, non- examination of the investigating officer cannot be fatal for the -5- CRL.R.C. No.2522 OF 2012 Date of order:13.03.2026 prosecution case. He submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court has held correctly that non examination of the investigating officer shall not defeat the case of the prosecution. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the certified copy of the judgment of the trial court and the appellate court along with the evidence placed before this Court through the trial court record. 5. The brief facts suggest that on 09.08.2008 at about 7.00 a.m. the accused was driving an auto in a high speed and dashed the deceased at Narasaraopeta centre, wherein the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. P.W.2 lodged the complaint. It appears from the prosecution case that the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses, among them P.Ws.1 to 5 are the close relatives of the deceased, but they actually not supported the prosecution case in verbatim. However, P.Ws.7, 8 and 10 are the ocular witnesses, who deposed before the trial court that they have seen the incident on their own. During the examination-in- chief, P.W.7 stated that the deceased sustained grievous injury by the crime vehicle which was driving at high speed. P.Ws.8 and 10 also stated in the same version. The other witnesses have identified the petitioner in dock. -6- CRL.R.C. No.2522 OF 2012 Date of order:13.03.2026 6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that P.Ws.7 and 8 did not speak about the rash and negligent driving of the present petitioner in driving the offending vehicle. 7. P.Ws.7 and 8 has stated that at the time of accident, the vehicle was in very high speed. The term ‘rash and negligent’ need not required to be stated in evidence. The entire evidence shows that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in high speed. The fact suggests that it was very busy road. Thus the petitioner, whO driving the offending vehicle in busy road in high speed itself suggests that he was rash and negligent at the time of the driving the vehicle. The learned trial court is of the opinion that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. From the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8 and 10, the same was duly proved. Moreover, P.Ws.7, 8 and 10 are the direct witnesses. Thus at this juncture, I find no justification to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8 and 10. There may be other witnesses who are not duly supporting the prosecution case, but three witnesses i.e., P.Ws.7, 8 and 10 are justified to support the prosecution case. The non-examination of Investigating Officer in this case does not affect the prosecution case. The evidence of the Investigating Officer becomes relevant in a criminal case particularly when some witnesses, who were examined during the investigation are stated otherwise in court. Upon perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8, and 10, it appears that -7- CRL.R.C. No.2522 OF 2012 Date of order:13.03.2026 all these witnesses stated that they were examined by the police during the investigation just after the accident. No suggestion was made or denial was placed by the defence counsel to show that P.Ws.7, 8 and 10 stated otherwise during the recording of their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Without such discrepancy in the evidence before the learned trial court, the examination of the Investigating Officer is not required to contradict the prosecution case. Furthermore, the investigation conducted by the police is not under challenge. Therefore, the Investigating Officer appears to be only a formal or technical witness, without whose evidence it cannot be said that the prosecution case has been defeated. 8. Considering the entire aspect, it appears to me that the observation of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court suffers no illegality and impropriety. I find no justification to hold that the learned trial court or appellate court was error in fact and law in passing the impugned judgment. 9. Accordingly, the order of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court suffers no illegality. 10. Thus, the instant criminal revision case has got no merit to entertain. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. 11. The order suspending the sentence during the pendency of the Criminal Revision Case stands vacated. The petitioner is directed to -8- CRL.R.C. No.2522 OF 2012 Date of order:13.03.2026 appear before the learned Trial Court within four weeks from the date of passing of this order to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence. Failing which, the Trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure his presence and ensure compliance. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:13.03.2026 BV