The High Court's role in revision limits reassessment of evidence and focuses on legality, confirming that undue sympathy in sentencing can undermine the judicial system's integrity.

JUDGMENT /ORDER :

This revision is arising out of judgment dated 19.09.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. in the judgment dated 21.09.2009 in CC No.386 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused herein was the driver of Lorry Bearing No.AP 10T 3969. On 30.09.2005, both the deceased went to Guntur in Maruti Car Bearing No.AP 9A 4004 as wife of PW1-Sanka Purna Prabhakar Gupta was delivered. On 01.10.2005, while they were returning from Guntur to Vijayawada, at about 12 midnight they reached NH Road at Chinakakani near Vijayalakshmi Weigh Bridge, at that time, the petitioner drove lorry in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed without blowing horn in a wrong direction towards Khaja Village, dashed front portion of Maruti Car, resulting which both the deceased stuck inside the front seat of car and died instantaneously. PW1, who was coming behind the car witnessed the incident and given report to Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, which was registered as a case in Crime No.147 of 2005 under Section 304-A I.P.C.

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

4. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

6. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.

7. Heard Sri Nagabhushanam Gudapati, legal aid, for the petitioner and Sri Naidana Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

8. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court is erroneous and not properly appreciated the testimonies of the witnesses. The Courts below ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PW1, who is an interested witness, to find the guilt of the accused under Section 304-A I.P.C. Even there is no identification of the accused in this case. More so, the Doctor, who conducted Post-Mortem examination also not examined to speak about the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and non-examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution case.

9. Sri Naidana Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that PWs.1 and 2 are strangers to the accused. In the chief-examination, PW1 himself stated that he caught hold the accused and when questioned he revealed his name as Venkateswara Rao and the same is mentioned in the report given by PW1 and the cleaner of the lorry was also examined. He further submits that PW1 clearly identified the accused as driver of lorry. Therefore, the Court can safely relied upon the testimony of PW1 and there is no need for any further corroboration nor conducting any identification parade of the accused. The investigating officer seized a trip sheet, which clearly establishes the name of the accused, who is driver of the lorry at that particular time. All these