The court upheld the conviction for causing death and injuries due to negligent driving, affirming the lower courts' findings while reducing the sentence from six to three months based on mitigating circumstances.

JUDGMENT:

V. SRINIVAS, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 10.03.2016 in Crl.A.No.226 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 25.10.2012 in C.C.No.492 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Special Magistrate II at Visakhapatnam, 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 14.03.2016 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide order in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1128 of 2016.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

i). On 10.07.2011 at about 09.30 a.m., while P.W.1 along with seven others proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 31 TA 8340 (hereinafter referred to as “crime auto”), when they crossed the Leprosy Colony, NH.5 Road, Tatichetlapalem, the accused being driving of the said auto, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed a stationed Lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 5335, resulted the inmates in the auto sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment one Murthuza Valli (hereinafter called as “the deceased”) succumbed to injuries.

ii). Basing on the Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, P.W.12-S.I of Police, IV Town Traffic Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.168 of 2011 under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.492 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Special Magistrate II at Visakhapatnam, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC, vide judgment dated 25.10.2012, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two (2) months, also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of twenty (20) days and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of ten (10) days, for the respective offences.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.226 of 2012, before the Court of learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 10.03.2016, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused.

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

7. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing 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 V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 is not corroborated with each other and cannot be relied upon; that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the offences alleged against the petitioner; 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. Per contra, Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3, who are injured coupled with testimony of P.W.5, who is eye-witnesses to the incident, clearly goes to show that P.Ws.1 and 3 and other inmates in the auto sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the same by the accused, resulted death of the deceased; that the testimony of P.Ws.8 and 11 coupled wit