The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving causing death but reduced the sentence to one month, considering mitigating circumstances and the time elapsed since the incident.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRINIVAS, J.

1. Assailing the judgment dated 01.12.2011 in Crl. Appeal No. 45 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 26.03.2010 in C.C. No. 46of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Vizianagaram, for the offences 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.

2. The revision case was admitted on 07.12.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl. R.C.M.P. No. 3664 of 2011.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

(i) On 11.03.2008, one Thalada Malatchi (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) went to Mopada Shandy and at about 04.00 p.m. while returning, he was proceeding towards Poosapatipalem, the accused drove the auto bearing No. AP 35 U 4904 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the deceased from his backside. As a result, deceased fell on the road, sustained severe bleeding injuries on his right leg and head. Then PW-1, who is the son of deceased and present at the scene of offence, got shifted him to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries.

(ii) Basing on the complaint of PW-1, PW-8 the then Head Constable, Poosapatirega Police Station, registered a case in Cr. No. 21 of 2008 under Section 304-A of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, the then S.I. of Police, Poosapatirega Police Station laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 46 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Vizianagaram and trial was conducted and found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month, for the said offence.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl. Appeal No. 45 of 2010, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 01.12.2011, by confirming the conviction passed by the trial Court, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six (6) months to three (3) months.

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

7. Heard Sri Taddi Nageswara 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 Tadi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PWs. 1 to 4 are interested witnesses; that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients to constitute the offence; that Ex.P.7 post mortem certificate cannot be relied upon as the doctor who conducted autopsy was not examined by the prosecution; that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased, but not accused; that no identification parade was conducted to identify the accused as driver of the crime auto; 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. Per contra, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that PWs. 1 and 2, who are eyewitnesses to the incident, testified about the negligent driving of the petitioner and they identified the ac