The main legal point established is the reliance on consistent and convincing witness testimony to uphold the conviction for the mentioned offences.

ORDER :

Assailing the judgment dated 19.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge(FTC), Tirupati, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Section 304A, 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 134(a) and (b) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “M.V.Act”) by the judgment dated 16.03.2009 in C.C.No.491 of 2007 on the file of Court of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).

2. The revision case was admitted on 23.08.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2526 of 2011.

3. The petitioner was arrayed as accused in Cr.No.143 of 2007 of Chandragiri Police Station for the offences under Section 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V.Act and after thorough investigation police laid the charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.491 of 2007 on the file of Court of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, and after full pledged trial, found the accused guilty for the offences under Section 304A, 337 of IPC and Section 134(a) & (b) r/w.187 of M.V.Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, one (1) month and fifteen (15) days respectively and all the sentences shall run concurrently.

4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.35 of 2009, before the Court of learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati and the same was dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the petitioner.

5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

6. Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court as well first appellate Court relied upon the testimony of interested witness and convicted the accused, which is incorrect under law; that there is a discrepancy among the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8; that P.Ws.6 and 9 even not supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile; that there is no proof that petitioner was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and that mere driving of the vehicle in high speed does not come under the rash and negligence in view of the provisions under the act.

7. He further submits that no witness identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. Thereby, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, which were confirmed by the first appellate Court, are liable to be set aside.

8. As against the same, Smt.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are concurrent findings recorded regarding the fact that the accused was the driver of the Tata sumo bearing No.AP 03 G 5119 at the time of incident; that there is a clear evidence from the testimony of P.Ws.5 and 8, which clinchingly established that the accused was the driver of the vehicle, who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the stationed APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 4925, resulting death of six (6) persons, among them three (3) persons died at the spot and three (3) persons died while undergoing treatment and P.Ws.5 and 8 are received injuries, who categorically deposed that accused drove the crime vehicle at high speed of 120 k.m. per hour at the time of accident.

9. She further submits that the trial Court after considering the entire material on record, rightly convicted the accused and the same was upheld by the firs