RAMAYANAM VENKATA SATYANARAYANA v. THE STATE OF A P

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimavaram in C.C.No.17 of 2014 dated 23.06.2015, which was confirmed by the judgment dated 12.12.2017 made in Crl.A.No.228 of 2015 by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of Crl.R.C.No..of 2017 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3286 OF 2017 ORDER: Heard learned counsel representing Sri Rambau Koppineedi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. The revision is preferred by the appellant/convict challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2017 in Crl.A.No.228 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Bhimavaram. The Crl.A.No.228 of 2015 was preferred against the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.17 of 2014 delivered on 23.06.2015. The Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC. The revision petitioner was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default imprisonment for three (03) months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The revision petitioner was further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only), in default, suffer imprisonment for one (01) month for the offence under Section 338 IPC.

3. The revision petitioner challenging the judgment of the learned Magistrate preferred the Crl.A.No.228 of 2015. The appellate court below confirmed the order of conviction recorded by the Magistrate, 4 but modified the sentence of imprisonment of one (01) year to three (03) months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, also modified the sentence of imprisonment of six (06) months to two (02) months for the offence under Section 338 IPC, while confirming the quantum of fine imposed by the Magistrate for the both offence.

4. The revision petitioner challenged the judgment of the appellate court below on the ground that the Sessions Judge failed to see that judgment of the Magistrate was based on surmises and conjunctures. There is no evidence to prove the case of the prosecution. None of the witnesses deposed about the negligence or rash act committed by the accused. There is no evidence regarding identity of the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Hence, the judgment of the Sessions Court and the Magistrate Court are not sustainable in law.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.11.2013, the deceased along with her daughter-in-law (PW-3) boarded an auto bearing No.AP37 TA 2701 (Crime Vehicle) to go to Bhimavaram. The accused was the driver of the auto. He drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner on the way to Bhimavaram. The crime vehicle auto reached the scene of offence located near Prakash Nagar, Bhimavaram. The accused drove the auto on wrong side of the road in a rash manner. As a result, he dashed the other auto bearing No.AP37 TA 2407 5 stationed on the left side of the road, in opposite direction, as a result, the crime vehicle i.e., auto of the accused turtle down. The passengers travelling in the auto i.e., deceased and PW-3 fell down and sustained injuries, as a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

6. The driver of the stationed auto (PW-1) presented a report to the Inspector of Police (PW-9). He registered the same as case in Crime No.202 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC, conducted investigation into the case. PW-6, Motor Vehicle Inspector verified the crime vehicle and issued report that accident was not due to mechanical failure of the crime vehicle. PW-7, the Doctor examined the injured PW-3 has issued Ex.P5-wound certificate. He also conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P6-Postmotem Report that the deceased died of cardio respiratory arrest due to injury to brain and fracture of skull bone. He also issued wound certificate opining that PW-3 suffered grievous injury. PW-9, the Investigation Officer on conclusion of the investigation, laid the charge sheet.

7. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 9 and filed Exs.P1 to P8 documents during their evidence.

8. The case of the accused is denial. No evidence placed for the defence. 6

9. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the above evidence for the prosecution, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A and 338 IPC. Accordingly, convicted the accused and sentenced him as mentioned above. Challenging the said judgment of the learned trial Court, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.228 of 2015 before the Sessions Court at Bhimavaram. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction, but, modified the sentence as mentioned above.

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would argue that the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 and PW-8 did not establish rash or negligent act committed by the driver of the auto i.e., crime vehicle as the cause for the accident. He would also argue that the evidence on record is not sufficient to identify the driver of the crime vehicle, but the courts below did not consider the same, and came to an erroneous opinion that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it is a fit case to interfere in the revision.

11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argue that both courts below on facts categorically found that accused was the driver of the crime vehicle. He drove the vehicle on a wrong side of the road. It resulted the accident causing death of a person and injuries to PW-3. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgments of the courts below. 7

12. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration in this Criminal Revision Case is as under: “Whether there are grounds to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below”?

13. POINT: The case of the prosecution is that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident in the case. He drove the crime vehicle i.e., auto bearing No.AP37 TA 2701 in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the accident was occurred. The persons travelling in the crime vehicle fell down from the auto and sustained injuries. Therefore, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. PW-3 suffered grievous injury. Hence, the accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC.

14. PW-1 is the driver of the other auto i.e., AP37 TA 2407. The evidence of PW-1 would show that on the date of accident, he is coming from Bhimavaram side and going towards Gollavanitippa Village. On the outskirts of Bhimavaram, he stopped the auto on the left side of the road, as one of the passengers intend to alight there. Therefore, a passenger alighted from the auto and paying the fare to the driver (PW-1). At that point in time, the crime vehicle coming in opposite direction from Gollavanitippa Village side and going towards Bhimavaram Town. The accused was driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The auto i.e., crime vehicle came on the wrong side 8 of the road with speed, as a result, the accused could not control the vehicle and dashed the stationed auto.

15. Therefore, the crime vehicle turtle down towards left side. Passengers i.e., deceased and PW-3 travelling in the auto fell down and sustained injuries. PW-2 is an eye witness. He was travelling in the auto of PW-1. PW-2 corroborated the testimony of PW-1 on all material facts, and also identified the accused as a driver of the crime vehicle. PW-3 is an injured witness in the case. PW-3 evidence would show that PW-3 was travelling in the crime vehicle along with the deceased. The evidence of PW-3 also corroborated the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 on all material facts regarding the manner, in which the accident was occurred and identity of the driver of the crime vehicle as that of the accused.

16. In fact, perusal of the evidence of above witnesses would disclose that the accused never disputed that he was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. PW-8 is another eye witness travelling in the stationed auto at the time of accident. The evidence of PW-8 also corroborated the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 on all material facts and the manner in which, the accident was occurred. PW-5 is a witness to the observation report i.e., Ex.P2 and inquest report Ex.P3. PW-5 evidence would disclose that the crime vehicle is on the wrong side of the road in the scene of offence. 9

17. Therefore, the facts and circumstances coming out from the evidence placed on record would establish that the auto of PW-1 was stationed on the left side road margin of the road to enable a passenger to alight. A passenger alighted from the auto of PW-1. He was paying the fare to PW-1. Meanwhile, the auto i.e., crime vehicle driven by the accused came in opposite direction on the wrong side of the road i.e., on the right side instead of left side, as a result, the accused could not control his vehicle and dashed the stationed auto. Therefore, crime vehicle turtled. The passengers travelling in the crime vehicle i.e., deceased and PW-3 fell down and sustained injuries as deposed by PW-7-Doctor. The result is death of the deceased and PW-3 suffering grievous injury.

18. Therefore, the evidence on record beyond reasonable doubt would establish that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He drove the same in a negligent manner i.e., driving the vehicle on the wrong side of the road. He also drove the vehicle in such a manner, he could not control the vehicle and dashed the stationed vehicle, which would amount to act of rashness. Therefore, the accused drove the crime vehicle negligently as well as rashly, causing the accident leading to death of a woman and grievous injuries to PW-3. Hence, the prosecution proved the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and also the offence under Section 338 IPC 10 beyond reasonable doubt, as rightly held by the trial Court and the appellate Court below.

19. In the light of fore going discussion, this Court do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court below and the trial Court. Hence, the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed.

20. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. This order be certified to the lower Court, as per section 405 of Cr.P.C. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

24.02.2026 Pmk 11 170 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3286 OF 2017 Date: 24.02.2026 Pmk