Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Bonthu Narasimha Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 575 of 2007
Decided On : 31-10-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Chidambaram.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 304-A, 338, 337 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 R/W 181 OF M.V. ACT - RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING - CAUSING DEATH OF FIVE PERSONS AND INJURIES TO NINE PERSONS - IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED - EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES - DYING DECLARATION - ACCIDENT DUE TO BURST TYRE - NEGLIGENCE - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for causing death of five persons and injuries to nine persons due to rash and negligent driving. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was driving a tractor with 30 passengers in a trailer attached to it, and the left front tyre of the tractor burst, causing the vehicle to overturn into a canal, resulting in the deaths and injuries. The petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that he was not the driver of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle through the evidence of witnesses, including a police constable who witnessed the accident, and a dying declaration of one of the deceased. The court also found that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as evidenced by the fact that the front left tyre of the vehicle was in a boiled condition and the petitioner had failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence. The court held that the petitioner's act of driving the vehicle in such a condition amounted to negligence and was the cause of the accident.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. 2. Whether the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 3. Whether the petitioner's negligence caused the accident and the resulting deaths and injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had established the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle through the evidence of witnesses, including a police constable who witnessed the accident, and a dying declaration of one of the deceased. The court found that the evidence of these witnesses was reliable and consistent, and that there was no reason to disbelieve their testimony. 2. The court held that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as evidenced by the fact that the front left tyre of the vehicle was in a boiled condition and the petitioner had failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence. The court found that the petitioner's act of driving the vehicle in such a condition amounted to negligence and was the cause of the accident. 3. The court held that the petitioner's negligence caused the accident and the resulting deaths and injuries. The court found that there was a direct connection between the petitioner's rash and negligent driving and the accident, and that the deaths and injuries were a direct result of the petitioner's negligence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court. The court found that the judgment of the appellate court was not illegal, improper, or irregular, and that the appellate court had rightly dismissed the appeal with valid reasons, confirming the judgment of the trial court.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner, who was the accused in C.C. No. 423 of 2002, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, East Godavari District and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2005, on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.
2. The Petitioner herein faced the prosecution in C.C. No. 423 of 2002, on the allegations of Sections 304-A, 338, 337 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” in short) and Section 3 and 4 of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act (“M.V. Act” in short). He suffered with conviction in C.C. No. 423 of 2002, dated 13.12.2005, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, against which he filed a Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2005, on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, where he could not succeed. Challenging the judgment in the Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2005, dated 13.04.2007, he filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief pertaining to C.C. No. 423 of 2002, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, is as follows:
(i) On 21.08.2002 at 5-00 P.M. the accused driver of Tractor B/No. AP-5B-7242 and Trailor B/No. AP-5U-3487 combination started from Devaguptham Village in view of the marriage of daughter of PW-9 which was fixed to perform in Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Amalapuram on the night of same day at 8-00 P.M. The PWs. 1 to 9 and Deceased Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. Katta Vijaya Lakshmi, Kudipudi Suryakantham, Namala Venkata Lakshmi, Pithani Sailakshmi, Badugu Dhana Lakshmi, boarded the crime vehicle and the accused failed to take any precautions while taking about 30 persons in the trailor. On the way to Amalapuram when the said Tractor-cum-Trailor reached near to the Rice Mill of Kamanagaruvu village at about 5-45 P.M. the accused drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the left front tyre of the tractor was suddenly burst and the tractor went un-control of the accused and as a result the Tractor-cum-Trailor turned turtle into the left side irrigation canal and on that all passengers who travelled in the said Tractor-cum-Trailor fallen underneath and drowned in the water. PWs. 1 to 9 as well as Deceased Nos. 1 to 5 received injuries on their persons. PW-11 P.C. 1742, Ainavilli Police Station who was coming behind the crime vehicle, witnessed the offence. With the assistance of PW-10 and some others he rescued the injured persons and sent them to the hospital for treatment by the autos. The accused absconded from the scene of offence after the offence.
(ii) On 21.08.2002 at 7-00 P.M. on the strength of Hospital Intimation and statement given by Deceased No. 4, a case in Crime No. 56 of 2002 under Section 338, 337 of IPC has been registered and investigated into by the Investigating Officer i.e. PW-29. During the course of investigation, he examined all the injured persons on 21.08.2002 including PW-11.
(iii) On 22.08.2002 PW-29 visited the scene of offence, inspected the same minutely, prepared rough sketch of the same and got photographed the scene of offence in various angles through LW-33-Private Photographer and he sent a requisition to PW-25-Motor Vehicle Inspector, Amalapuram to inspect the crime vehicle and to issue necessary accident report.
(iv) On 26.08.2002 at 9-30 A.M. on the strength of death intimation of Deceased No. 1 from Critical Care Hospital, Amalapuram, PW-29 re-registered the case altering the section of law from 338 and 337 I.P.C. to 304-A, 338 and 337 I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. to all officers concerned and he conducted inquest over dead body of Deceased No. 1 on 26.08.2002 in the presence of PW-18 and LW-35 Kudupudi Surya Prakasarao and 36-Bhyrisetty Nageswara Rao. On 27.08.2002 at 7-00 A.M. PW-29 received death intimation of Deceased Nos. 2 and 3 and he conducted inquests over dead body of De
