The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the accused's rash and negligent act beyond reasonable doubt in cases of causing death by negligence under Section 304A IPC.

ORDER :

This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed against him in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 01.07.2009 for the offence punishable under Section 304 A IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10 days by confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.579 of 2002 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka, dated 10.08.2007.

2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on early hours of 04.10.2002, the deceased went to the tea stall of P.W.1/S.Govinda Rao, near IBP Petrol Bunk, Srinagar at about 06.00 hours. After having tea, while he was crossing the road, the accused being driver of Trucker Jeep bearing No.AP31U6578 proceeding from Anakapalle towards Gajuwaka in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the deceased resulting which, he sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to R.K Hospital by the accused himself in the Trucker and after rendering first aid, the deceased was shifted to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam for treatment. Basing on the report of PW1, a case is registered as Crime No.25 of 2002 under Section 337 of IPC. While so, during the treatment in the hospital, accused died on 07.10.2002. On receipt of the death intimation from the PW3 who is the brother of the deceased vide Ex.P2, the Section of law is altered to Section 304-A of IPC.

3. During the course of investigation, P.W.6/SI of Police examined and recorded the statement of the witness and conducted inquest of deceased and sent the body for Post Mortem Examination. P.W.5 conducted Post Mortem and executed Ex.P4 wherein it was reported multiple injuries. A charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC.

4. The plea of the accused is of total denial stating that he never committed any offence. The contention of the defence as seen from the suggestions put to the witness is that while the deceased was suddenly crossing the road due to his negligence, accident occurred.

5. Learned trial judge after hearing both the counsels and on appreciating of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC stating that though it is suggested to PWs. 1 & 2 due to the negligence of the deceased while crossing the road the accident occurred, they denied as such the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304 A of IPC. Accordingly, convicted under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated supra. The accused carried the matter in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam wherein, the learned judge confirmed the judgment of the trial Court on the point of conviction and sentence thereafter, dismissed the appeal.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the concurrent judgments of the Court below, the accused preferred the present revision on the ground that learned judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and erroneously convicted though no material on record disclosed commission of the offence, that the Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt, that only basing on the evidence of Pws.1 & 2 though there is discrepancy relating to number of the crime vehicle, learned judge erroneously came to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly prays to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned judgment.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused the entire record. The point for determination is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused is sustainabl