The court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC, affirming that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of an identification parade.

JUDGMENT :

Assailing the judgment dated 02.06.2016 in Crl.A.No.358 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 25.09.2014 in C.C.No.87 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada, 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.

2. The revision case was admitted on 07.06.2016 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide order in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2019 of 2016.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

i). On 21.03.2011 at about 09.00 p.m., while one Karri Ramarao (hereinafter called as ‘deceased’) proceeding on his bicycle, when he reached in-front of Power Control Office, outskirts of 3^rd A.P.S.P. at Kakinada, the accused being driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 05 TA 3407 (hereinafter referred to as “crime auto”), drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the deceased cycle, resulted the deceased fell on the road, received severe injuries and died on the spot.

ii). Basing on the Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, P.W.9-Inspector of Police, Sarpavaram Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.66 of 2011 under Section 304-A of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.9 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.87 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, vide judgment dated 25.09.2014, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.358 of 2014, before the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 02.06.2016, 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 A.S.K.S. Bhargav, learned counsel representing Sri N. Subbarao, 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 A.S.K.S. Bhargav, learned counsel representing Sri N. Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the incident occurred was not due to negligence on the part of the accused; that the prosecution witnesses did not identify the accused as driver of the crime auto by the date of incident; that no identification parade was conducted by the investigating agency; that the prosecution failed to prove the offence 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.2 to 4 categorically shows the rash and negligent driving of the accused in causing the incident, resulted death of the deceased; that the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 7 shows that the accused is the driver of the crime auto by the date of incident; that the testimony of P.W.6 coupled with Exs.P.3 and P.7 show that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in th