VASAKURI SRINIVASA RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision has been preferred under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.,') against the concurrent conviction for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C'). The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram in C.C NO.35 of 2009 on 23/12/2009, convicted and sentenced the Revisionist for the offence under Sec. 304-A of 'the I.P.C.,' to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine Rs.3000.00. The said judgment was confirmed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bhimavaram in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2010, on 27/10/2010.

(2.) Sri. I.V.N Raju, learned Counsel for the Revisionist, while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 suffers from discrepancy and interestedness; ingredients of Sec. 304-A of 'the I.P.C.,' were not proved beyond reasonable doubt; the learned Trial Judge erred in finding that the Revisionist while driving vehicle turned at his back which resulted in causing alleged accident; the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that P.W.2 to P.W.5 being independent witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution; material omissions in the evidence of P.W.1 went against the case of the prosecution; the learned Courts below failed to see that P.W.1 being the son of the deceased, narrated that the deceased was throwing the waste material on the extreme left side of the road, whereas the alleged accident occurred in the middle of the road as per the scene of the offence.

(3.) It is further argued that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that P.W.1 did not properly identify the Revisionist/Accused as the driver of the crime vehicle; the Courts below failed to appreciate the settled law in Mahadeo Hari Lokre v. State of Maharashtra,AIR 1972 SC 221. and requested to allow the Revision.