Concurrent findings of guilty must be upheld unless glaring defects are present or a miscarriage of justice occurs; professional drivers may not qualify for probation under Section 304-A IPC.

ORDER :

1. The revision was preferred under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment in Crl.A.No.168 of 2011 dated 29.08.2012 whereunder the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Anatapuram confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed for the offences under Section 337 , 338 and 304-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’) on the revisionist by the learned Magistrate. The revisionist was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month and payment of fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) for the offence under Section 337 of ‘the I.P.C.’ and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and payment of fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) for the offence under Section 338 of ‘the I.P.C.’ and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and payment of fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) for the offence under Section 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Anantapur vide C.C.No.444 of 2010 dated09.11.2011.

2. The following grounds were urged in the revision:

a) The ingredients to constitute alleged offences were not made out by legal evidence;

b) The learned Courts below erred in relying on highly interested and discrepant testimony of PW.4, PW.18 and PW.20;

c) There was a failure to appreciate that a lorry was coming in opposite direction with lights focused on bulls of double bullock cart which was stopped on the right side of the road the cart suddenly started and turned on left the crime vehicle was not produced before the court;

d) The learned Appellate Court failed to see that PW.12 the owner of the alleged crime vehicle in his deposition stated that the accused was not the driver of his vehicle and his vehicle had not met with any accident;

e) The learned Appellate Court failed to see that there was a delay in examination of the vehicle by Motor Vehicle Inspector;

f) The learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that PW.4 was a planted witness who was in inimical terms with the accused;

g) The learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that no witness traveled in the accident vehicle identified accused as the driver of the auto;

h) The learned Judge failed to see that as per Ex.P1 the name of the accused was not mentioned as the driver of the auto.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Sri M. Vijaya Saradhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the testimony of PW.4, PW.18, and PW.20 are not reliable as they are interested, PWs.1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11 and 14 did not support the case of prosecution; the alleged accident occurred because bulls of the double bullock cart suddenly turned on the left side as the focus lights fell on the eye of the bulls; PW.12 being the owner of the vehicle testified that the accused was not his driver and the vehicle never met with an accident; PW.4 has got inimical terms with the petitioner; the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts; the learned Trial Court and also the appellate Court failed to appreciate the above contentions and erroneously convicted and sentenced the petitioner owing to misreading evidence.

5. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasona