APHC010341602010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2271/2010 Between: 1. VELLANKI TATAJI, W.G.DISTRICT, S/O. SUBBA RAO AUTO DRIVER R/O., GRANDHI CHELLARAO STREET, 1ST WARD, MENTEVARI THOTA, BHIMAVARAM -1, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY P P HIGH COURT HYDERABAD, Rep. by P.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 to present this memorandum of criminal revision case against the judgment dated 01-12-2010 made in Crl.A.No.218 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bhimavaram, in confirming the judgment dated 30-10-2009 passed in C.C.No.92 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge, cum J.F.C.M., Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 3397 OF 2010 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 execution of the sentence passed in judgment dated 01-12-2010 made in Crl.A.No. 218 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bhimavaram, in -2- CRL.R.C.No.2271 OF 2010 confirming the judgment dated 30-10-2009 passed in C.C.No. 92 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge, cum J.F.C.M., Bhimavaram, West Godavari District pending disposal of the main Crl.R.C. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 recall the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him on 10.07.2025 and grant him an opportunity to appear and prosecute the above revision case, in the interests of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K M R KAMALA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: -3- CRL.R.C.No.2271 OF 2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 2271 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The instant criminal revision case, under sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred against the judgment, dated 01.12.2010, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.218 of 2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the trial court’) in C.C.No.92 of 2008, vide judgment, dated 30.10.2009, 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 one and half year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised several points challenging the order of conviction. Firstly, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the family members of the deceased. Thereby, they are the interested witnesses. Hence, their evidence cannot be believed. Secondly, the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle has not been proved. There are no -4- CRL.R.C.No.2271 OF 2010 test identification parade during the investigation. The witnesses identified the accused for the first time only in the dock. Thus, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the presence of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. Finally, it has been argued that the Investigating Officer was not examined. Thereby there is a lacuna in the prosecution case.Thus, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised some objections and submits that the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove the charge under section 304-A of IPC. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the co- passengers in the offending vehicle. P.W.5 is the independent witness, a taxi driver, who was present at the time of accident. P.Ws.1 to 4, though relatives of the deceased, are also co-passengers. Thus their evidence shall be treated as direct and eye witnesses. Further the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that P.W.5 is not a family member, but he stated before the Court that he was present at the time of accident and has seen that the petitioner drove the auto in a narrow place in a rash and negligent manner, thereby he could not control the speed and turned turtle. He submits that though P.Ws.1 to 4 are the relatives of the deceased, but their evidence is believable. It is argued by the State that all the witnesses categorically identified the accused in the dock, there are no discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Moreover, their credibility was not shaken in the cross- -5- CRL.R.C.No.2271 OF 2010 examination. Thus, non-examination of the Investigating Officer in this particular case is not fatal to the prosecution case. Hence the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the judgment passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. 5. It appears that, the contention whether P.Ws.1 to 4 are the interested witnesses or not has already been raised by the counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial court. The learned trial court, after perusing the evidence available on record, is of the opinion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is reliable and trustworthy. The learned trial court has also observed that P.W.1 cautioned petitioner herein, to drive the offending vehicle slowly, but the petitioner did not heed his request. The trial court has carefully observed the demeanour of the witnesses and held that P.Ws.1 to 4, though relatives, were co-passengers and direct eyewitnesses. Their testimony is reliable and trustworthy. The appellate court also noted that their evidence cannot be disbelieved merely because they are relatives. 6. The contention regarding the identity of the petitioner as a driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, it appears that the said contention was raised before the trial court. The learned trial court, while referring the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, particularly on the basis of the evidence of -6- CRL.R.C.No.2271 OF 2010 P.W.5, has held that all the witnesses have unequivocally identified the petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle before the Court. Though there is no test identification parade, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is trustworthy. Thus there is no out of doubt that the present petitioner was driving the auto at the relevant point of time. Hence, I find no justification in the instant revision case regarding the identity of the petitioner as a driver of the offending vehicle. 7. The last contention regarding the non-examination of the Investigating Officer before trial court is concerned, it appears that the learned trial court has already observed that non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal to the prosecution case. The learned appellate court, while dealing with the said contention, has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case State of U.P. v. Anil Singh1 and held that the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is applicable to the present facts of the case. I have also perused the said judgment and the facts thereof. It appears that the examination of the Investigating Officer is necessary in a criminal trial where it is alleged by the defence that the investigation is perfunctory and defective. However, in the present case, there is no suggestion on behalf of the defence regarding the doubtful investigation. Moreover, the examination of witnesses during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer is also not doubtful. It was also not raised during 1 1988 AIR (SC) 1988 -7- CRL.R.C.No.2271 OF 2010 the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that there are any material contradictions from their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and their evidence before the trial court. In the absence of any such discrepancy or prejudice to the accused, the non- examination of the Investigating Officer in the witness box is not fatal to the prosecution case. 8. In the instant revision, upon perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, as well as the testimony of P.W.5, it is evident that the prosecution has successfully established the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged accident. Petitioner being driver of the offending vehicle, voluntarily surrendered to the police after accident, hence there is no requirement of test identification parade. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner under Section 304-A of IPC is, therefore, justified. I find no illegality or impropriety in the findings of the learned trial court holding the accused guilty of the said offence and confirmed by the learned appellate court. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 304-A IPC is confirmed. 9. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is aged above 50 years and is suffering from various ailments and is bedridden; upon considering the overall circumstances of the case, it appears that punishment under Section 304-A IPC may be either conviction or fine, or both. In the present case, a fine of Rs.10,000/- has already been imposed. Having regard to the -8- CRL.R.C.No.2271 OF 2010 health condition of the petitioner, it would not be prudent to direct petitioner to undergo imprisonment. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the present petitioner is converted into an additional fine of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to pay the said fine within a period of four weeks from the date of this order before the trial court, in addition to the fine already imposed. 10. Under the above observation, the instant criminal revision case is disposed of. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.18.03.2026 BV