ORDER :

1. A convict/accused presented this criminal revision case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. questioning the correctness of judgments of two Courts below.

2. An automobile accident occurred on 03.07.2002 resulted in death of one person and injuries to eight persons. The vehicle involved was an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP-02-U-3142. The incident occurred during broad day light at 9:30 A.M. at a place that was about 5 K.Ms. away from Rayadurg. At the relevant point this revision petitioner was stated to be driving the said auto rickshaw with 15 passengers in it. One of the injured/PW-3, who was shifted to Government Hospital, Rayadurg, gave his statement to police as per Ex.P.11 and Rayadurg Police acting upon it registered Crime No. 46 of 2002 and investigated into the case and found the auto driver/revision petitioner was responsible for the crime incident and laid charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg, who thereupon took cognizance for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304 I.P.C. and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. While the crime incident occurred on 03.07.2002 the accused was arrested on 01.10.2002. Trial Court summoned him and he duly appeared and he was defended by his own learned counsel when he was furnished with copies of documents in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Crime alleged allegations were put to him under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the truth of the allegations and pleaded not guilty. That made the prosecution to introduce the evidence in the form of PWs. 1 to 12 and Exs.P.1 to P.14. Witnesses were duly cross-examined in defence of the accused. The learned Magistrate having found incriminating material, he confronted the same to the accused and sought for his explanations as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused responded by mere denial stating that the evidence led against him was false. When he was informed of his right to have any evidence in his defence, he reported no such evidence.

3. On considering the material on record in that case in C.C. No. 315 of 2002 and after hearing arguments, the learned trial Court stated that the evidence of eye witnesses was consistent and that evidence established the identity of the accused as the one who drove the auto rickshaw at the relevant time and the learned Magistrate also found that at the material point of time accused was driving the auto rickshaw at high speed and the accused found a jeep coming in opposite direction was also coming at high speed and it was near a culvert that the accused noticed the opposite coming vehicle and it was at that stage he swerved his vehicle towards right side in such a manner that it turned turtle and fell into a ditch resulting the death of one and injuries to eight others. He found that the inquest report, post-mortem report and wound certificates issued by the doctor and the evidence of the doctor/PW-5 added strength to the oral evidence and found the accused guilty and convicted him and sentenced him by a judgment dated 14.09.2006 as mentioned below:

4. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the accused made an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Anantapur in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2006. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the arguments advanced on both sides and having considered the entire evidence and the judgment impugned before him found that on all the material aspects the decision taken by the trial Court was correct and the approach of the trial Court was in accorda