Negligence under Section 304-A IPC requires a causal connection between the act and the resultant harm; in the absence of evidence of driver negligence causing a mechanical failure, liability cannot be established.

ORDER :

V Srinivas, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 06.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.85 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the judgment dated 29.07.2009 in C.C.No.121 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, for the offences under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 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 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).

2. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

i). All the injured are coolies and they came to Anjimedu Village for their agricultural work. On 11.12.2004 at about 07.00 p.m., after completion of their agricultural work, all of them engaged the crime tractor cum trailer bearing No.AP 03L 5645 and 5646 and went to watch the film. Then they returned to Ilaganuru by the same tractor and trailer.

ii). The accused drove the said tractor in a rash and negligent manner, when they reached V.M.Palem Village at about 01.15 a.m., the pin of the tractor was broken, the trailer was separated from the tractor and turned turtle. As a result, they received injuries and all the injured were shifted to hospital by the villagers. The accused escaped from the spot.

iii). On receipt of hospital intimation, P.W.13- S.I of Police, Srikalahastri (Urban) Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.185 of 2004 and investigated into.

3. After completion of investigation, P.W.15 laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.121 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti and after full-fledged trial, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four (4) months each for the respective offences and all the sentences shall run concurrently.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.85 of 2009, before the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati and the said appeal was dismissed on 06.06.2011 by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused.

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

6. Heard Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned counsel attached to the office of State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

7. 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 first Appellate Court by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the revision petitioner?”

8. Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no legal, cogent and reliable evidence to say that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time; that the undisputed fact is that the pin attached to the trailer was broken and unfortunately, the alleged incident was occurred, as such it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner, resulted death of a person as well injuries to ten persons; that there was no rash and negligent manner and the accident is the result of mechanica