ORDER

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.11.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda (for short, “the appellate Court”) in confirming the judgment dated 19.07.2012 in C.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Ms. Hima Bindu, learned counsel representing Mr. E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused was the driver of the milk van bearing No.AP-10-V-8062. The deceased was the cleaner in the said van. During the early hours of 05.12.2008, the accused started from Hyderabad in the said van for supplying milk at Jangaon. While the van was reaching Bhongir, the accused drove the van in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed lorry bearing No.AP 29 T 5840 near Housing Board bus stop, Bhongir on National Highway No.202. Resultantly, the head of the deceased was cut off and got separated from his body and the deceased died on the spot. It is stated that the accused also sustained injuries. Basing on the said facts, the present crime was registered.

4. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra, sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “MV Act”) and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred an appeal.

5. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.

Assailing the same, the present Revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

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

8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, the trial Court found that, to prove the identity of the accused, the prosecution examined PW5 as eyewitness, PW8 as circumstantial witness, PW6 as driver of the lorry, PW7 as labour on stationed lorry and PW4, who is the owner of the vehicle. The evidence of PWs.4 and 6 clearly established that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. Further, the accused also failed to produce his driving licence. Therefore, the trial Court observed that the accused drove the vehicle without any valid licence.

9. PW6, in his evidence, deposed that at the time of the accident, the accused drove the milk van and that he saw the accident at about 100 metres distance. He also deposed that the person in the milk van driven by the accused died. PW7, in his evidence, also stated that one milk van dashed against their lorry which resulted in the death of one person. But, he did not identify the accused. Therefore, from the evidence of PW7, the rash and negligent driving of the van driver was established.

Moreover, Ex P9 i.e., the wound certificate also revealed the wounds received by the accused on the date of the alleged incident. The report of Motor Vehicle Inspector also revealed that the condition of the vehicle