The court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER :

Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.

This Revision was directed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C .,’) against the judgment in Crl.A.No.342 of 2010 dated 07.12.2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur, whereunder the Revisionist was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the I.P.C.,’) The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, found the Revisionist guilty vide judgment dated 01.07.2010 in C.C.No.312 of 2005.

2. On the following material grounds the Revision was preferred:

P.Ws.1 to 4 have no previous acquaintance with the Revisionist; no test identification parade was conducted identifying the Revisionist as a person who drove the offending vehicle; non-examination of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP16 X 7348 i.e., L.W.7 who was the independent witness to speak against the Revisionist. The vehicle in question was travelling with excess passengers beyond its permissible capacity. The Defacto-complainant himself lost control of the auto and the auto might have tilted which led to the death and injuries of the passengers. Non-examination of the passengers travelling in the auto bearing No. AP 16 X 7348 was fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Defacto-complainant to avoid prosecution and payment of compensation to the kith and kin of the deceased fabricated a false case against the Revisionist. The learned Trial Court failed to take into account the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The observation of the learned Trial Court is that no material information was elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution was erroneous. The learned Appellate Court did not independently consider the evidence of the witnesses of prosecution in correct perspective and was carried away by the findings of the learned Trial Court. There was no corroboration and consistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 3. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court were erroneous in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 of ‘the I.P.C.’

3. I have heard the arguments of Ms.R.Sudharani, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Revisionist and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Mrs. R.Sudharani, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds of Revision and argued that the learned Appellate Court and also the learned Trial Court came to the wrong conclusion and convicted the accused. The learned Courts ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the Revisionist as the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt; non-examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) who issued the certificate was fatal to the case of the prosecution. Similarly, independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution to bring out the truth in the case and urged this Court to acquit the Revisionist by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Appellate Court.

5. Per contra, Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent and corroborating in material particulars, trustworthy, and inspires confidence. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Photographs filed and marked and the scene observation Report exhibit the veracity of the speed of the offending vehicle. The Revisionist was identified by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court and Appellate Court came to correct conclusions and convicted the Revisionist by appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the correct perspective. There are no grounds let alone valid grounds to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and argued to dism