The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while reducing the sentence to one year based on mitigating circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRINIVAS, J.

1. Assailing the judgment dated 22.01.2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 140 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 07.05.2007 in C.C. No. 57 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, for the offences under section 304-A, 338 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 25.01.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl. R.C.M.P. No. 128 of 2010.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

(i) On 11.01.2003, in the afternoon, the petitioner being driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 37 T 222 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in intoxicated state and dashed a stationed auto of PW-2 in opposite direction near Harijanapeta at Talluru, resulted death of three persons at the spot and injuries to PWs. 1 to 5.

(ii) Basing on Ex.P.1 statement of PW-1, PW-10-S.I. of Police, Peddapuram Police Station, registered a case in Cr. No. 2 of 2003 for the offences under Section 304(A), 338 and 337 of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, PW-11 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 57 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, trial was conducted, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one (1) month, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one (1) year and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) months, for the respective offences. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl. Appeal No. 140 of 2007, before the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 22.01.2010, 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 A. Ravinder, 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 A. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not the driver of the crime lorry by the time of accident; that he did not commit any offence; that no proper evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that petitioner was driver of the crime lorry by the date of incident; that no blood test was conducted to say that the petitioner was in drunken state by the time of 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. 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 in drunken state and caused the incident as held by the Courts below; that in view of the testimony of prosecution witnesses specifically PWs. 1, 3 to 7, the accused is the driver of the crime lorry by the date of incident; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner for the said offences; that t