IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that charges under Section 304(ii) IPC require specific evidence of culpable homicide, which was not established, allowing for lesser charges.

ORDER:

1. The sole accused in S.C.No.146 of 2018 preferred this criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC impugning the order dated 01.12.2023 of learned Judge, Family Court – cum – VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in Crl.M.P.No.555 of 2018 in S.C.No.146 of 2018. By the impugned order, the prayer made by the revision petitioner to discharge him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

2. Respondent herein is the State.

3. Kumari S.Amulya, the learned counsel representing Sri G.Ronald Raju for petitioner and Kumari Disha Chowdary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State submitted arguments.

4. The revision petitioner is owner cum driver of Scorpio car bearing registration No. WB 40 AD 1418. It is alleged that on 24.12.2017 at about 8:30 AM on NH16 of Kurellagudem Village of West Godavari District, the revision petitioner/accused drove his vehicle at high speed, rashly or negligently and with a careless attitude and in a jig jag manner and dashed a truck auto bearing registration No. AP 37 TB 3171 proceeding in the same direction and then dashed a motor cycle which was yet to be registered and then hit another motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 37 AF 5896 and then hit the road divider and stopped. In this incident, three persons died and several persons sustained grievous and simple injuries.

5. After due investigation in this incident of Crime No.188 of 2017 of Bhimadole Police Station, with a list of LW.1 to 47, the Inspector of Police, Bhimadole circle filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhimadole for the offences under sections 304(ii), 338 and 337 IPC. It seems the learned Magistrate found the case exclusively triable by the court of sessions and therefore committed the same and that reached finally to learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The accused/revision petitioner made his appearance and then moved Crl.M.P.No.555 of 2018 seeking discharge. State filed its counter. After due hearing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru found no merit in the plea of discharge and dismissed the petition. That forced the revision petitioner to file the present revision.

6. Two contentions are raised on behalf of the revision petitioner.

1. That the material on record does not support any accusation against the revision petitioner and there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and the learned Additional Sessions Court failed to notice it.

2. That the material on record may indicate Sections 337 and 338 IPC and does not indicate any facts attracting Section 304(ii) IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the facts and law.

7. Thus, the above points fall for consideration here: -

Contention 1:-

In support of the first contention raised, the learned counsel for revision petitioner contends that truck auto bearing registration No.AP 37 TB 3171 is the culprit and the driver and owner of it were supposed to be charged but the police let them off. It is stated that against the rules, the said vehicle carried 25 passengers and it is the said auto truck which came in the wrong direction and dashed the divider and then dashed the motor cycles and this revision petitioner who escaped from all these swerved his Scorpio and got stopped at the road divider and therefore he is innocent. It is further stated that the said truck auto was not road worthy. Its driver had no licence and no insurance. Similar is the case with the motor cycle. However, ignoring all that, this revision petitioner has become accused of all these offences though in fact he is a victim of the incident.

8. The above contentions were raised before the learned trial court. After considering them, the learned trial court stated the principle of law by referring to various precedent and the statute and held that it was obliged to consider only the material produced by the prosecution and decide