APHC010592632017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1193/2017 Between: 1. B.POLAIAH, S/O B.LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O MALLAMGUNTA VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, TIRUPATI, THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 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 submit this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case being aggrieved, by the Judgment dated 19.04.2917 passed in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2016 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Tirupati, Chittoor District conforming the conviction made in C.C.No.253 of 2014 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 1927 OF 2017 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 production of certified copy of the judgment made in C.C.No.253 of 2014 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, dated 27.01.2016 and to pass 2 such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 1928 OF 2017 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 Judgment dated19.04.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2016 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Tirupati, Chittoor District conforming the in confirming the judgment dated 27.01.2016 passed in C.C.No.253 of 2014 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Cla', Tirupati, Chittoor District and to release the petitioner/Accused on bail pending disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1193 OF 2017 O R D E R: Heard Sri Sarma C.V.S.S., learned counsel representing Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. The revision is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.04.2017 in Crl.A.No.51 of 2016 (C.C.No.253 of 2014) on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati. The appellate court below dismissed the appeal confirming the order of conviction passed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and Section 134(a)(b) read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial Court recorded conviction for the above offence on no evidence. Unfortunately, the appellate court below did not consider the same and confirmed the order of conviction imposed by the trial Court. He would further submit that the evidence of PWs-1 to 4 does not disclose the manner in which the accident was occurred to arrive at a conclusion that the accused drove the bus in a rash or negligent manner causing the accident, resulting the death of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that the evidence of PW-1 would disclose that she was going ahead of 4 the deceased at the time of accident. She turned back on hearing the cries of the deceased and others and noticed the deceased under the rear wheels of the bus. Therefore, she has no occasion to witness as to how the bus moved at the time of accident. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that PW-2 is the son of the deceased, is not an eyewitness. PW-3 is a chance witness present by the side of the road, working in a tea stall located in front of the bus stand. He also did not depose the manner in which the accident was occurred to say that the accused drove the bus in a rash or negligent manner. PW-4 is the conductor of the bus. He was in the bus, at the time of accident. He also did not depose the manner in which the accident was occurred. On the other hand, his evidence would show that bus was moving very slowly at the time of accident, coming out from the bus stand on to the road. 6. Admittedly, there are no zebra crossing lines on the road, in front of the bus allowing pedestrians to cross the road. In that view of the matter, in the absence of direct evidence to prove that bus was driven rashly or negligently by the driver at the time of accident, it cannot be held that prosecution proved the case, but the trial Court as well as appellate court below came to such a conclusion on no evidence. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court as well as appellate court below are not sustainable in law and on facts and requires interference by this Court. 5 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argue that the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 4 would show that the accused was driver of the bus, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, dashed the deceased, he fell down on the rear wheels of the bus, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the evidence on record would establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove the bus rashly and negligently, which resulted the death of the deceased. Hence, the trial court as well as appellate court below rightly held that the prosecution proved the evidence. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the appellate court below and trial Court. 8. In the light of the above rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration in this Criminal Revision Case is as under: “Whether the judgment of the appellate court below as well as the trial Court warrants interference of this Court? 9. P O I N T: It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was the driver of the bus/crime vehicle at the time of the accident. The evidence of the conductor would disclose that the accused was driving the bus at the time of accident. There is no dispute about this fact. 10. The question is whether the accused drove the bus in a rash or negligent manner and caused the accident, which resulted the death of the deceased? 6 11. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased. Admittedly, she was moving in front of the deceased and the bus at the time of accident. She deposed that on hearing cries, she turned back and noticed her husband under the rear wheels of the bus. PW-4 is the conductor of the bus. He was in the bus at the time of accident. He did not depose as to how the accident was occurred. He deposed that the bus was moving very slowly when it is coming on to the road from the bus stand. PW-3 is a tea master, working in a tea stall located in front of the bus stand on the other side of the road. He deposed that he noticed the bus is coming out from the bus stand and he raised cries on seeing a person falling on the road. Therefore, PW-3 evidence also is not specific as to how or the manner in which the bus was driven by the accused at the time of accident to say that the accused drove the bus in a rash or negligent manner. 12. Therefore, the evidence on record as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, is not making out the manner in which the accident was occurred, except making out that bus is coming out from the bus stand slowly on to the road and the deceased was walking on the road and thereafter witnesses noticed the deceased under the rear wheels of the bus. These facts are not sufficient to say that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the bus by the accused. 7 13. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent act of the accused, confirmed by the appellate court below are not based on evidence to say that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the bus. In that view of the matter, the finding of the trial Court and appellate court below shall be treated as finding not based on evidence. Therefore, require interference by this Court in this revision. Therefore, the judgment of the appellate court below and trial Court are not sustainable in law, as the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to carry the Court, to come to a finding that the prosecution proved the act of rash or negligence on the part of the accused, causing the accident. 14. In the light of foregoing discussion, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgment of the appellate court below and trial Court are set aside. Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and Section 134(a)(b) read with 187 Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, he acquitted for the said offence. The bail bonds of the revision petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him in accordance with law. 8 As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 17.02.2026 Pmk 9 86 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1193 OF 2017 Date: 17.02.2026 Pmk