B. RAJNIKANTH Vs. P. RAJAIAH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the petitioner in the lower Court, assailing the judgment of VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad made in O.P. No.1415 of 2016 on 16.08.2007 on the grounds that the lower Court dismissed the petition without looking at the fact that there was negligence on the part of the respondent; the lower Court did not go into the facts of the case before dismissing the petition; the lower Court failed to see Exs.A-1 and A-2, copy of FIR and charge sheet, respectively, which show that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle.

(2.) At the hearing, the counsel for the appellant submits that the delay in giving the report is very well explained by stating in the report, that after the accident, the owner of the vehicle approached them and assured that he would pay the compensation and asked them not to file any case, hence they did not give report immediately and after the owner failed to comply with his promise, they gave report to the Police. The said explanation seems to be cogent and there cannot be any other reason for the appellant not to give a report. The following facts also would support the above opinion.

(3.) As per the FIR, the accident occurred on 07.04.2004 and Ex.X-1, case sheet of M.G.M. hospital, reveals that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 07.04.2004 and injuries were found on the body of the appellant. Hence, the explanation given by the complainant in the report can be upheld as cogent as the fact of accident is made probable by the injuries sustained by the appellant.