The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of identification of the accused before the trial Court, the interpretation of rash and negligent driving under Section 304(a) I.P.C., and the reliance on eyewitness evidence to establish negligence.

JUDGMENT

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The Sub-Inspector of Police, Penamaluru Police Station, has filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section.304(a) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C').

2. The Court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 304(a) I.P.C. and on conclusion of trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 304(a) I.P.C. and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

3. The facts of the case were that one Nagavarapu Suresh who is aged about four (4) years was playing in front of his house. at that time the accused being the driver of the auto bearing No.aP-16-X-8015, drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, while proceeding from auto Nagar to Ramavarappadu road and in Gowrisankarnagar, Kanuru Panchayat, hit the deceased boy and dragged him to a distance of about 10 feet. as a result, the deceased succumbed to injuries.

4. In the mean time, the LW2 Mendam Shyam, who was coming on the road on his bike raised shouts and got stopped the auto driver. Immediately, the complainant went there and noticed the deceased with bleeding injuries on head, face, shoulders. Immediately he shifted the deceased to Vijayawada Government Hospital. The Doctor tested him and declared dead.

5. On the complaint lodged by mother of the deceased, the Sub-Inspector of police registered complaint under Section 304-a I.P.C. and filed charge sheet in the Court.

6. The prosecution has examined as many as four (4) witnesses in order to establish the case. PW1 is M.Satyam Babu, who is eye witness to the incident who noticed the accident and raised shouts and stopped the auto, caught hold of the accused and handed over to the police.

7. as per the prosecution case, the deceased boy was playing on the road. PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW7 were eye witnesses, who stated about the accident that, the driver of the auto was proceeding with about fifteen (15) passengers. The auto hit the boy who was playing on the road and on noticing the same, the witnesses raised shouts but the auto went forward with same speed about 10 yards dragging the deceased boy.

8. The ocular evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW7 goes to show that the deceased died to the accident caused by auto, drove by the petitioner herein. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased. In the trial Court, the petitioner has taken the defense that he is not the driver of the auto and he was falsely implicated and the accused was identified before the Court for the first time. Immediately, after the accident, the police did not conduct any test identification parade. No witness stated to the police the descriptive particulars of the accused and that they can identify the accused if shown to him. In such circumstances, without conducting test identification parade, the identity of the accused before the Court cannot be treated as proper identification. He relied on the judgment in 'K. Rajayya Vs. State of andhra Pradesh 2010 (2) aLD (Crl.) 376 (aP).'

9. Learned Judge after considering the evidence has convicted the accused and turned down the contention raised by the accused relying on the identification of the accused on the ground that PW2 followed the accused/driver and caught hold of him and handed him over to the police. Relying on the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW7, the trial Court has convicted the accused without any haste and the sole defense that was taken by the petitioner/accused is that he is not driver of the auto.

10. against such Calender and Judgment, the appellant/accused filed an appeal before Court of learned Session: Metropolitan Division: Vijayawada in Criminal appeal No.48 of 2012.

11. The lower appellate Court dismissed the criminal appeal confirming the conviction of the appellant vide judgment dated 07.01.2013 in Criminal appeal No.48 of 2012.

12. aggrieved by the conviction imposed by the lower appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

13. Heard both sid