AMARTHALURI JOHN KENNEDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused against the judgment, dated 23.6.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2004 on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, at Tenali, Guntur, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Repalle, by judgment dated 02.4.2004 in C.C.No.22 of 2003, was confirmed.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 26.02.2003 at about 1.30 p.m. the deceased was going on his cycle to his village, while so, a lorry bearing No.ADG 279 came at high speed from behind driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the cycle and ran over the cyclist causing severe injuries. P.Ws. 2 to 6 who are eye witnesses to the accident along with PW.1 removed the injured to the Super Speciality Hospital at Guntur for treatment. However, he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment there. Cherukupalli P.S. registered a case in Crime No.8/2003 under Section 338 IPC against the lorry driver. However, after the death of the injured, the provision of law was changed to 304-A IPC.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2004 before the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, at Tenali, Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides and appreciating the material on record, dismissed the said appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, through judgment dated 23.6.2006. BEING aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed inter alia on the following grounds. That the ingredients of Section 304-A IPC were not established; that identity of the accused as driver of the accident vehicle was not established; that the court failed to appreciate that P.Ws. 1 to 3 were interested witnesses; that non-examination of the Cleaner of the accident lorry was fatal to the prosecution case; that both the courts below failed to consider that the evidence of P.W.1 was in the nature of hearsay and that the accused was not rash and negligent in driving the lorry at the time of the accident.