Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 180
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER, J
Mohd. Hameed – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRLRC/82/2010
Negligent driving leading to death and injuries requires evidence of recklessness; identification of the accused can be valid even without a Test Identification Parade.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 - Criminal Revision Case filed against conviction for causing death by negligence and injuries - Conviction confirmed by Sessions Judge - Evidence showed driver drove at high speed resulting in accident causing two deaths and injuries to others - Witnesses corroborated the driver's negligent conduct. (Paras 3, 4, 7, and 9)
(B) Conviction under Section 304-A - Mere high speed not sufficient; must show reckless driving - Reliance on testimonies of passengers and their identification of the driver upheld despite absence of Test Identification Parade. (Paras 6 and 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, driver of an overloaded auto, was convicted after an accident where two passengers died and others were injured. The evidence indicated that the petitioner ignored pleas to drive slowly, leading to the accident.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was upheld, but the sentence for Section 304-A was reduced to one year due to the petitioner's age and the time elapsed since the accident.
Issues: Whether the evidence sufficiently established reckless driving for conviction under Section 304-A and the admissibility of identification without Test Identification Parade.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence of passengers was credible and sufficient to establish negligence, and the absence of a Test Identification Parade did not undermine the identification of the driver. The sentence was modified considering the petitioner's circumstances.
Result: Criminal Revision Case partly allowed.
The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2009 in Crl.A.No.152 of 2006, on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. The said conviction when questioned in appeal was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the Driver of an Auto bearing No.AP-13V-4949. While he had several passengers including P.Ws.1 to 5 and others, he drove the vehicle at a high speed resulting in the vehicle turning turtle. On account of the said accident, two persons died and others received injuries.
5. On the basis of the complaint filed, the Police registered the case and filed charge sheet for the above said offences.
During the course of trial, P.W.1, PWs. 3 and 4 who are the relatives of both the deceased, P.Ws.5 to 8 who are the injured and other witnesses were examined including Motor Vehicle Inspector-P.W.18. Further Exs.P.1 to P.22 were marked. Learned Magistrate found favour with the version of the witnesses that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed resulting in the accident and accordingly conviction was recorded. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that it would not suffice if the witnesses stated that the vehicle was driven at a high speed. Unless there was rash and negligent driving deliberately resulting the accident, the question of attracting an offence under Section 304-A of IPC does not arise. She relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Satish 1 and the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2 . Counsel further argued that there was no Test Identification Parade to
1 MANU/SC/1241/1998
2 MANU/HP/0054/1989
identify the revision petitioner. In the absence of any Test Identification proceedings, the identification of the accused cannot be accepted by the Court. In support of her contentions, she relied on the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Jarapala Deepala and Ors vs. State of A.P 3 . Further counsel submits that FIR is anti-timed, for which reason also prosecution has to fail. Counsel relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudarshan and Ors vs. State of Maharashtra 4 .
7. According to the evidence of injured witnesses including P.W.1, Auto was overloaded, in fact witnesses have cautioned the Driver to drive the vehicle slowly, however, without heeding to the advice of the passengers, the vehicle was driven at a high speed resulting in the Auto turning turtle.
The said act of overloading the Auto and driving at a high speed inspite of passengers pleading the Driver to go at a slow pace would indicate that Driver was rash and negligent in his driving.
8. All the witnesses are passengers in the Auto who have identified the Driver, as such the identification of the injured
3 MANU/AP/0868/2005
4 MANU/SC/0504/2014
cannot be brush aside, only for the reason there being no Test Identification Parade. Not conducting Test Identification Parade in the present circumstances of the case is of no consequence and the evidence of witnesses identification of the accused can be relied on.
9. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Court below. However, keeping in view the accident is of the year, 2001 and the petitioner now is aged more than 50 years, the sentence of imprisonment of two years under Section 304-A of IPC is be reduced to one year. The sentence of imprisonment imposed under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC remain unaltered.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Miscellaneous applications pen
