ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Ragati Hari – Petitioner
versus
State of A.P. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.903 of 2008
Decided on 24.11.2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – Causing death by rash and negligent driving – Conviction and sentence – Accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of vehicle – Defence of accused is denial simplicitor, though specific and distinct incriminating circumstances were put before him by trial Court during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination – He denied the same and reported no defence witnesses – On account of delay in recording statement of witness by Police, case of prosecution cannot be thrown out – Defence of accused is nothing but evasive before trial Court – It is not defence of accused that there was any negligence on part of deceased in trying to cross road – Prosecution before trial Court was successfully able to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt under Section 304-A of IPC – Sentence imposed against Revision Petitioner before trial Court which was confirmed by Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal is not liable to be interfered with. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 21, 24, 26 and 27)
Result: Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
ORDER
This is a Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (“Cr.P.C.” for short), challenging the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2007, dated 23.06.2008, on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, where under the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner, confirming the judgment in C.C.No.35 of 2006, dated 01.02.2007, on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
2. The petitioner faced the trial under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) in C.C.No.35 of 2006, dated 01.02.2007 and in the said case, the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and after questioning the him, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
4. The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam, filed charge sheet in Crime No.3 of 2006 of II Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam, alleging in substance as follows:—
(i) Accused is resident of Santhi Nagar, Kailasapuram Road, Visakhapatnam. He is the rider of Yamaha Rx 100 Motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 31B 4110 at the time of occurrence. The offence took place on 06.01.2006 at 7-00 p.m. on the road near Ramakrishna Theatre, Kobbarithota, Visakhapatnam, within the limits of II Town Traffic Police Station. The deceased in the case is one AnipiSimhadri S/o late Raja Rao, aged 55 years. He is resident of SVP Nagar, Kobbarithota, Visakhapatnam. L.W.1-Anipi Kanaka Raju resident of Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam, is the de facto-complainant and the son of the deceased. L.W.2-Vanapalli Govinda and L.W.3-K. Appa Rao are direct witnesses to the occurrence.
(ii) On 06.01.2006 at 7-00 p.m., accused being rider of Yamaha Rx 100 Motorcycle bearing No.A.P.31B 4110, driven the same in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Ramakrishna junction towards Dolphin Junction. With the motorbike, he dashed the pedestrian (deceased) while crossing the road near Ramakrishna Theatre, Kobbarithota, Visakhapatnam. Then the deceased fell on the road and sustained injuries and blood oozed out from the ear and nose. He was shifted to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam for treatment on 07.01.2006 in unconscious state. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries at the hospital on 09.01.2006 at 2-00 p.m.
(iii) L.W.11, Head Cosntable-436 recorded the statement of L.W.1 and forwarded the same to L.W.12. Originally, L.W.12 registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2006 under Section 337 of I.P.C. and investigated into. He examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses. After the death of deceased, section of law was altered into Section 304-A of IPC. Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased on 10.01.2006 during the course of investigation. Later, the body was referred for postmortem examination to the Professor, Forensic Medicine, Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. The Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate, opining that he died due to Respiratory and circulatory failure due to injury to skull bone, injury to brain due to “Head Injury”. L.W.12, the investigating officer, arrested the accused on 12.01.2006 at 12-00 noon and sent him for judicial remand. The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Visakhapatnam, inspected the crime vehicle and issued a report, opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet is laid.
(iv) The learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, took th
On account of delay in recording statement of witness by Police, case of prosecution cannot be thrown out.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on prosecution evidence, including witness testimonies and reports, to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 304-A IPC.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence to determine the accused's culpability for driving in a rash and negligent manner, leading to a fatal accident and i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and documentary evidence, must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonab....
The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, that the accident was caused by the accused's rash and neglige....
The court confirmed that party negligence resulting in death is a breach of statutory duty under Section 304-A IPC, as supported by eyewitness testimony and accident investigation findings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.