The court confirmed the conviction for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC, emphasizing the driver's duty of care and reducing the sentence from six to three months based on mitigating circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRINIVAS, J.

1. Assailing the judgment dated 11.06.2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 182 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 26.03.2010 in C.C. No. 28 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, for the offence under section 304-A 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 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).

2. The revision case was admitted on 22.06.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl. R.C.M.P. No. 1677 of 2010.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

(i) On 12.01.2008 in between 4.00 p.m. to 04.30 p.m. when one Sk. Maimunnisa (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was sitting on a plastic chair in front of her house and PW-1 was in the verandah, the petitioner drove the Mini Lorry bearing No. AP 7 T 7747 in a rash and negligent manner from Ponnur side and dashed against the deceased. On that, deceased fell from the chair and the lorry was running over on her leg. Then, PW-1, who witnessed the incident, raised alarm and taken the deceased to Private Hospital, Ponnur and therefrom to Government Hospital, Ponnur, where she declared dead.

(ii) Basing on Ex.P.1 statement of PW-1, PW-8/S.I. of Police, Ponnur Town Police Station, registered a case in Cr. No. 7 of 2008 for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, PW-8 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 28 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, trial was conducted, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six (6) months for the said offence.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl. Appeal No. 182 of 2010, before the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 11.06.2010, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

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

7. Heard Sri B. Paramesewara Rao, 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 B. Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of PW-2, who is the husband of the deceased and came to the scene of offence after hearing the alarm raised by PW-1, cannot be relied upon as he is not an eye-witness; that the accused was not the driver of the crime vehicle; that the evidence of PW-3, who is owner of the lorry, cannot be relied upon; that there was a dadi height of five (5) feet in between the accident place and house of PW-1, as such it is not possible for PW-1 to witness the accident; that the Courts below erred in holding that PW-1 is the direct witness to the incident; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective and erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside.

10. Against the same, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the petitioner drove the crime lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the incident as held by the Courts below; that there is categorical evidence adduced by the prosecution to say that the petitioner, who was t