IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that credible eyewitness testimony can establish guilt in negligence cases, and concurrent findings by lower courts are generally upheld unless proven otherwise.

ORDER :

Assailing the judgment dated 11.04.2011 in Crl.A.No.166 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, confirming the conviction passed against the accused by the judgment dated 14.09.2009 in C.C.No.86 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, for the offences under section 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 18.04.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1376 of 2011.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

(i). On 18.11.2007, one Anapu Madhu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) along with P.W.1, P.Ws.3 to 5 and others, who were in Ayyappa Deeksha, proceeding from Adarshnagar towards N.H.5 road by foot on the left side of the road, with a view to go to Nookalamma temple for darshan, when they reached near Visakha Valley School Junction, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 31 TT 9589 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”), drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed them and rash over them. Resulted, the deceased died on the spot and other persons received injuries.

(ii). Basing on Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, P.W.11-S.I. of Police, Pothinamallayyapalem Police, Visakhapatnam registered a case in Cr.No.272 of 2001 for the offences under Section 304(A), 338 and 337 of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.86 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, trial was conducted, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two(2) months, sentenced to pay Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one(1) month and also sentenced him to pay Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one(1) month, for the respective offences.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.166 of 2009, before the Court of learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam and the same was allowed in part, vide judgment dated 11.04.2011, by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and confirming the conviction for the offences under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC, however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one (1) year to six (6) months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

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

7. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?”

9. Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 is highly interested and not reliable; that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner; that P.W.4 failed to identify the petitioner as driver of the crime vehicle; that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the alleged incident; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside.

10. Aga