Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Kada Veerraju – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 747 of 2009
Decided On : 27-12-2022
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 304-A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE - RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACT - CAUSATION OF DEATH - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - INTERPRETATION OF STATISTICAL RETURN - CORROBORATION OF TESTIMONY - DISMISSAL OF REVISION PETITION: 1. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, that the accident was caused by the accused's rash and negligent act, and that the deceased's death was a direct result of the injuries sustained in the accident. 2. The court may rely on circumstantial evidence, such as the accused's possession of the offending vehicle, the accused's admission of driving the vehicle, and the accused's failure to offer a reasonable explanation for the accident, to infer that the accused was responsible for the accident. 3. The court may also rely on the testimony of eyewitnesses, even if their testimony is inconsistent or unreliable, to corroborate other evidence and support a finding of guilt. 4. A statistical return prepared by the conductor of the offending vehicle, which indicates that the vehicle was involved in an accident at the time and place of the alleged offense, may be admissible as evidence and may corroborate the testimony of eyewitnesses. 5. The court may dismiss a revision petition if it finds that the trial court's judgment is supported by sufficient evidence and that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a driver of an RTC bus, was convicted by the trial court for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused appealed to the sessions court, which dismissed the appeal. The accused then filed a revision petition in the High Court, challenging the judgment of the sessions court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, that the accident was caused by the accused's rash and negligent act, and that the deceased's death was a direct result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The court relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses, the accused's admission of driving the vehicle, and the accused's failure to offer a reasonable explanation for the accident. The court also relied on a statistical return prepared by the conductor of the offending vehicle, which indicated that the vehicle was involved in an accident at the time and place of the alleged offense.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accident was caused by the accused's rash and negligent act. 3. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased's death was a direct result of the injuries sustained in the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident by relying on the testimony of eyewitnesses, the accused's admission of driving the vehicle, and the accused's failure to offer a reasonable explanation for the accident. 2. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accident was caused by the accused's rash and negligent act by relying on the testimony of eyewitnesses, the accused's admission of driving the vehicle, and the accused's failure to offer a reasonable explanation for the accident. 3. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased's death was a direct result of the injuries sustained in the accident by relying on the testimony of eyewitnesses, the accused's admission of driving the vehicle, and the accused's failure to offer a reasonable explanation for the accident.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the judgment of the sessions court.
JUDGMENT
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Revision Petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2008, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, challenging the judgment, dated 29.04.2009, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment in C.C.No.359 of 2004, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, but modified the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months into rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and confirming the rest of the judgment.
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, before the Court below, according to the charge sheet filed by the police pertaining to Crime No.57 of 2004 of Draksharama Police Station, is as follows:
(i) Accused was resident of Kakinada. He was the driver of crime R.T.C. Bus bearing No.A.P.9Z 5420 with valid driving licence at the time of accident on 14.05.2004 at 6-30 P.M., near Unduru Bridge. L.W.1-Penamallu Rama Suryanarayana Reddy is resident of Bhimakrosupalem village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal. He took the mango garden of Nallavaru, situated near Jagannadhagiri on lease for the year 2004 and is residing there. He is the injured-complainant. L.W.2-Chollangi Suribabu is the direct witness. L.W.3-Penumallu Suryanarayana and L.W.4-Penumallu Papireddy are the brother and father of one Penumalla Gandhala Reddy (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased') respectively. L.W.5-Tamadi Bandaru is the Conductor of crime APSRTC Bus.
(ii) The deceased aged 35 years is the son of L.W.4 and nephew to defacto-complainant. On 14.05.2004 the deceased from his village came to L.W.1 to see the mango garden, which was taken on lease by L.W.1 and the same evening L.W.1 by taking the deceased nephew on his cycle as pillion rider was going towards Bhimakrosupalem village. After crossing Unduru Bridge, they proceeded further to some other distance to Chaitanya godowns. Then, crime RTC bus driven by the accused-driver came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit the cycle from its back at 6-30 P.M. Then both L.W.1 and the deceased fell on ground and the deceased became unconscious. L.W.1 received contusion injury on the right wrist and abrasion injury on the right foreleg. L.W.2 witnessed the occurrence. Soon after the accident, passengers in the bus at their own went away and the accused-driver assisted by L.W.5, lifted the deceased and L.W.1 in the same crime bus to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. On examination of the deceased, who was in unconscious stage, the Doctor declared him as brought dead. Accused-driver after admitting them in the hospital left the crime bus and escaped. Basing on the death intimation of the deceased and a medico legal case intimation and statement of L.W.1 received from Police Outpost, Government General Hospital, Kakinada, L.W.14-the Sub-Inspector of Police issued F.I.R. in Crime No.57 of 2004 under Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. and investigated into. He examined the scene of offence in the presence of L.Ws.7 and 8, the mediators and got photographed the scene with the help of the Photographer i.e., L.W.6 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at mortuary shed of Government General Hospital, Kakinada on 16.05.2004 in the presence of L.Ws.3 and 4, blood relatives and L.Ws.9 and 10. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. L.W.11, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, examined the crime vehicle and opined that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. L.W.13, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of deceased was shock
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and documentary evidence, must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonab....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence to determine the accused's culpability for driving in a rash and negligent manner, leading to a fatal accident and i....
On account of delay in recording statement of witness by Police, case of prosecution cannot be thrown out.
The prosecution must prove negligence and establish a direct nexus between the accused's actions and the alleged offense.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on prosecution evidence, including witness testimonies and reports, to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 304-A IPC.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's actions were the direct cause of the accident, considering contributory negligence in criminal cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
