`THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2043 OF 2016

O R D E R:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 24-05-2016 in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2015 on the file of the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy (for short, “the appellate Court”) in dismissing the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence in respect of the offence under Section 304-A IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act ( for short ‘the Act’) against A1/revision petitioner herein as against the judgment dated 30-01-2015 in C.C.No.283 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nagarkurnool, (for short “the trial Court”). Originally, the case was registered against the revision petitioner/A1 and against the owner of the tractor A2.

2. Heard Mr. Dinesh Reddy Malli Reddy, Amicus curie for the petitioner and Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 21-06-2008 Pw-1 and her family members along with her son Sri Venkatesh went to the Uracheruvu tank to attend the work. At about 11:00 AM the revision petitioner drove the tractor bearing No.AP-22-AD-TR-3765 with trolley bearing No.3766 belonging to Rakasi Bal Reddy in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and dashed the vehicle against her son. While shifting her son to the hospital at about 11:30 AM her son died on the way. Based on the said facts, the present crime is registered for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act against the revision petitioner/A1 and Section 5 r/w Section 180 of the M.V. Act against the owner of the tractor A2.

4. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated in C.C.No.283 of 2009, found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 of the M.V.Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 3 r/w Section 181 of the M.V.Act. A-2 therein was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 5 r/w Section 180 of the M.V.Act. Aggrieved thereby, both of them preferred an appeal.

5. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 24-05-2016 in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2015 dismissed the appeal of the revision petitioner/A1 therein confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of six months simple imprisonment in respect of the offence under Section 304-A IPC and payment of fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 3 r/w 181 of the M.V.Act. The sentence of one month simple imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.1000/- imposed against A2 for the offence under Section 5 r/w Section 181 of M.V.Act of A-2 was set aside. Assailing the same, the present Revision petitioner filed the revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that judgments of the Courts below are erroneous. The Courts below erred in believing the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 as their relatives of the deceased. He contends that there is no possibility of the driver of the tractor driving in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed as the tractor was kept at Uracheruvu to load the mud removed from the cheruvu. He further contends that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the alleged offence. Therefore, learned Counsel seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that both the Courts, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, rightly passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

8. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dat