1 APHC010447992014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1705/2014 Between: 1. PUPPLA SRAVANA KUMAR, KRISHNA DT.,, S/O. MURALI, R/O. SINGHANAGAR, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP REP PP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court at- Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 ofCr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Criminal Revision Case Sr., being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 06.08.2014 made passed in Crl Appeal No. 44 of 2012 on the file of the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada by confirming the sentence passed by the Ill Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dated 13.03.2012 in CC No. 394 of 2008. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2769 OF 2014 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 certified copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble III Addl. Chief M.M. Vijayawada dated 13-03-2012 in C.C.No. 394 of 2008. 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2803 OF 2014 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/accused on bail by suspending the operation of the Judgment dated 06.08.2014 made passed in Crl Appeal No. 44 of 2012 on the file of the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada by confirming the sentence passed by the Ill Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dated 13.03.2012 in CC No. 394 of 2008, pending disposal of the above Crl.RC. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K.M.PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1705 of 2014 The Court made the following Order: The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC”) passed by the learned Trial Court, which was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court in the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that though the prosecution has cited PW.1 & PW.2 to be ocular eye witnesses and placed before the Trial Court.They deposed during their cross examination supporting the prosecution case, but during cross examination they did not support the prosecution case. He submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has believed only examination-in-chief of PW1 and PW2 which was later corroborated by the other witnesses to record the conviction. It is the solicitor contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court is illegal. He has pointed out the relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Trial Court, wherein the learned Trial Court has categorically recorded the statement of PW.1 and PW.2 in their chief examination as well as in their cross examination. He submits that the conviction on the basis of only chief-examination of PW‟s is not maintainable. He submits the other witnesses are the interested 4 witnesses, the learned Trial Court has based upon those interested witnesses to be the witness who corroborated the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has also gone wrong to decide the issue. 3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objections and submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has categorically noted their finding, there is no perversity in their finding. The finding of the learned Trial Court is based on the following observations of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances. He further submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court is speaking order they have arraigned reasons how the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is believable. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court categorically observed merely though other witnesses belong to the same department of the deceased, their evidence cannot be disbelievable. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The brief facts of the prosecution is that on 11.01.2009 at about 12.40 AM, the police was conducting checking, it has been alleged that at the time the petitioner with a pillion rider, drove a motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby he dashed the victim, who is on duty as a home guard and tried to stop the bike; by said accident, the victim was expired. PW.1 and PW.2 placed as independent eye witnesses. During the examination-in-chief, PW1 has narrated the manner of the accident and also stated categorically 5 that he saw the accident with his own eyes. He was recalled for cross- examination after some days. During recall, he deviated from his earlier evidence and stated that he knew the victim and when he reached the spot, by that time, the accident has already been happened; he also stated that he reached there after 5-10 minutes of the accident. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to cross examinethe PW1 by declaring him hostile. 6. PW.2 during the examination-in-chief deposed that he was on duty at the said check post and saw the accident, later on, in his cross examination though he admitted that he was on duty, but stated that he has not seen the accident. This is the only point, on the basis of which the learned counsel for the petitioner challenge the order of conviction. It appears that the other witnesses i.e., PW.4 to PW.6 are the police personnel (not ocular witnesses), who supported the prosecution case and corroborated the version of PW.1 and PW.2 as they stated in their examination-in-chief. Let me consider, whether the recording of conviction of the petitioner is sustainable on the basis of evidence on record placed by prosecution. 7. Admittedly in cross-examination PW.1 and PW.2 deviated their earlier version during their examination-in-chief. Learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court has categorically observed in their findings that the evidence laid by PW.1 and PW.2 during their examination-in-chief can be corroborated with other evidence i.e., evidence of PW‟s 4 to 6. I make it clear that the evidence of person in criminal trial is not only basing on the evidence during 6 his examination-in-chief. The entire evidence i.e., examination-in-chief and cross examination in a whole is the evidence of a prosecution witnesses. Entire evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 an just self contradictory. Though they supported the prosecution case during the examination-in-chief but they failed to support their own versions in cross examination. The conviction of the petitioner is based on corroborative version of PW.4 to PW.6 where they relied examination-in-chief of PW.1 & PW.2. The value of evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 cannot be placed in recording the conviction, as because, once they said a thing to be „yes‟ and during the cross examination they said it „No‟. On total reading of evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 be taken to be considered, it appears that their evidence cannot be believable. A person, who depose before the Court of law, supporting the prosecution case, what are the reasons to deny their version. Influence from defence side, is recording at the time of cross examination, is presumed, prosecution side, at the time of examination-in- chief also cannot be ruled out. 7. At this juncture, the recording of conviction on the basis of evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 is not reliable. The other witnesses i.e., PW.4 & PW.6 are not ocular witnesses, but has stated a fact, that the petitioner has drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, at the time of the accident. The factum of accident was not denied by the defence at any point of time. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner was arrested on the same day on the place of accident. Moreover, it appears that the other medical papers supports that the deceased died in road traffic accident. It is uncertain or not proved whether 7 the petitioner was drove the vehicle, at the time of accident in a rash and negligent manner. The sole ingredients of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC is that the prosecution has to prove that the accused was drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner thereby caused the death of the victim. In this case except the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 there is no other witness to say that the petitioner was rode the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. 8. It appears that the learned Trial Court has relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Himasu Chintu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2011(1) L.S-116” wherein the value of evidence of hostile witness are discussed. It appears that PW.1 & PW.2 has deposed in their chief examination as eye witnesses of the accident, but during their cross examination they again deviated their version and said that they have not seen the accident in their own eyes. 9. Considering the same, the evidence of PW.1 and PW2 is not dependable. Thus, the observation of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Himasu Chintu (Supra) is not applicable in this case. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances in this case, it appears to me that except the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 there are no other independent eye witness to support the prosecution case. Thus, it is quite impossible from this court to hold that ingredients of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC have been made out in this case. Merely, an 8 accident happened and thereby one victim has expired does not ipso-facto prove that the petitioner has caused the offence of rash and negligent driving. It appears to me that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court on the basis of evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 is not justifiable. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 in my considered view cannot be considered to be record the conviction of the present petitioner. 11. Under the above observations, the conviction and sentenced passed against the present petitioner is hereby set aside. The petitioner is set at liberty. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:13.02.2026. CMK/SSA