The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the identity of the driver and the act of rash and negligent driving, emphasizing the distinction between rashness and negligence.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner in Crl. Appeal No.214 of 2005, dated 15.03.2007 on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Tirupathi, Chittor District, by confirming the sentence passed in C.C. No.551 of 2002 dated 21.07.2005 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupathi.

2. The gravamen of charge against the accused is for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 3 r/w.181 of Motor Vehicle Act (in short ‘M.V. Act’).

3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 23.07.2003 at about 10.00 P.M., deceased baby Gowri went to attend nature calls beside the road and infront of the house of PW.1. PW.2 – A.Nirmala Jyothi is mother of the girl, PW.1 – A.Vajram is the mother-in-law of PW.2. PW.1 was standing infront of their house on the main road itself and with a view to return to her house, while she was crossing the road, the accused drove the Auto bearing No.AP 03 V 3383 with high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the girl, due to which she sustained bleeding injuries on her head and right leg. PW.1 and others took the injured girl to SVIMS Hospital. She died at about 11.00 A.M. while undergoing treatment. Basing on the statement of the grandmother of the child i.e. PW.1, case was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C., vide Ex.P7.

4. After registering case, S.I. of Police K.Venugopal – PW.7 proceeded to the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, vide Ex.P8, observed scene of offence under panchanama, vide Ex.P3 and found the crime vehicle at the scene. On the next day, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of the mediator - PW.3 under Ex.P2 panchanama. The owner of the auto produced the accused before the police. The Motor Vehicle Inspector issued report that there are no mechanical defects of the vehicle in the occurrence of the accident. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW.5 to PW.7 are the witnesses examined. Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were the documents marked before the trial Court. In defence, accused did not choose to adduce any evidence but he pleaded innocence of the offence.

5. After hearing both the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C and Section 3 r/w.181 of M.V. Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of I.P.C. and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and further to pay fine of Rs.200/- for the offence punishable U/s.3 r/w.181 of M.V. Act and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the trial Court, accused carried the matter in appeal before the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Tirupati vide Crl. Appeal No.214/2005, wherein the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming conviction and sentence imposed against the accused.

7. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the concurrent judgments, the accused preferred the present revision challenging validity and correctness of the impugned judgments on the grounds that,

(i) The Courts below grossly erred in not observing the vital aspect of the matter that the deceased girl suddenly rushed on to the road and came infront of the auto and fell down.

(ii) There is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused.

(iii) Identity of the accused is not properly established.

(iv) No independent witness were examined to prove the guilt of the accused.

(v) No Test Identification Parade was conducted.

8. Heard Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Having heard the submissions of both the counsel, the point th