YEGITILA PANDU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 13-2-2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 1999 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC, while modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 337 IPC to fine and reducing the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC from 18 months to six months, passed in CC No.38 of 1997 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Badwel, Cuddapah.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The petitioner/accused was driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-2990. P.W. 1 Kondareddi Venkatarami Reddy driver of the tractor / trolley bearing No.AP-04-T-4093/4094. On 1-3-1996 at about 6 a.m. the tractor/trolley driven by P.W.I was proceeding towards Siddavaram to Danthalapalli. The tractor had a load of earth which was being carried to the fields of the owner of the tractor namely Ramana Reddy, a journalist. Coolies were travelling on the trolley at that time. Deceased P. Kondaiah and deceased M. Thirupathiah, P.W.2 T. Gurraiah, P.W.3 Mudium Santaiah, P.W.4 Gin Anjaneyulu, P.W.5 Katari Venkataiah, P.W.6 Korivi Peeraiah, P.W.7 Nopuri Lakshmaiah P.W.8 Tirupati Pedda Veeraiah were among the coolies travelling on the trolley. On reaching Chinna Naravagutta, the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-2990 driven by the petitioner/accused came in high speed from opposite direction and dashed the front right side portion of the trolley and as a result the trolley went off the road and front tire disc of the trolley broke. P. Kondaiah and M. Thirupathaiah met with instantaneous death whereas P.Ws.l to 8 sustained injuries. P.W.9 K. Subbamma who was travelling in the bus also sustained injuries. At about 8 a.m. P.W.I, driver of the tractor/trolley, took all the injured to Porumamilla P.S. and presented. Ex.P-1 complaint before the SHO. P.W.16 M. Prabhakar, Head Constable of Porumamilla P.S. received Ex.P-1 complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.12/96 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC and issued Ex.P-11 FIR. He examined P.Ws.l to 5 and 8 and recorded their statements and sent the injured to Porumamilla Government Hospital for treatment. He visited the scene of offence at 10 a.m. and conducted inquest on the dead bodies of P. Kondaiah and M. Thirupathaiah. After the inquest, the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. P.W.15 Dr. Muni Sekhar, Medical Officer, Porumamilla examined P.Ws.6 to 9 and L.W.10 P. Ramaiah and issued Exs.P-5 to P-9 wound certificates. P.W.17 Dr. S.K. Hussain, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Cuddapah Government Hospital examined P.Ws.2 to 5 and issued Ex.P-12 to 15 wound certificates. P.W.15 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased M. Tirupathaiah on 2-3-1996 at 10.30 a.m. and issued Ex.P-10 postmortem report opining that the deceased died of injuries to vital organs like brain, lungs and bones. P.W.18 S. Mahaboob Basha, Circle Inspector of Police, Badvel took up investigation from P.W.16 M. Prabhakar and examined P.W.11 Pelluri Ademma wife of deceased P. Kondaiah and P.W.12 Mudium Venkatalakshumma wife of deceased M. Thirupathaiah and recorded their statements. He secured the presence of P.W.10 Munam Anjaneyulu, conductor of the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.A.P. 9Z 2990 and recorded his statement. The petitioner/accused surrendered himself on 1-3-1996 at 6.30 p.m. before P.W.18 who effected his arrest and produced him before the Court for being remanded to judicial custody. P.W. 18 sent requisition to the Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the vehicles involved in the accident. After completing investigation P.W. 18 filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as C.C. 38/97. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing copies of the documents to him, the learned Magistrate examined him under Section 251 Cr.P.C. putting substance of the acquisition levelled against him. The petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act. In order to substantiate the case against the petitioner/accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.l to 18 and marked Ex.P-1 to 15 on behalf of the petitioner/accused. Ex.D-1 was marked on behalf of the petitioner/accused. On considering the evidence and on hearing the prosecution and the petitioner/accused, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.300/- for the offence under Section 337 IPC; in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 45 days for the offence under Section 337 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months and pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused filed Crl. A. No.50/ 99 on the file of Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 13-2-2001 while confirming the conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC modified the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 IPC to fine and reduced the sentence of imprisonment of 18 months to six months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Hence, the petitioner/accused filed this revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the statements of the witnesses by submitting that there are glaring features in this case as the witnesses have not stated the manner of accident and therefore the petitioner/accused deserves acquittal. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the lower Court and the first appellate Court appreciated the evidence brought on record in right perspective and recorded conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and therefore re-appreciation of the evidence is not warranted in this revision.