Renu Kunta Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Judgment Date: 2008-10-16
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The conviction as recorded by the lower courts is set aside in view of the unsatisfactory nature of evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish the accusations beyond reasonable doubt. The operative effect is acquittal of the appellant on the 304-A charge.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Renu Kunta Mallaiah

Respondents

State of Andhra Pradesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. Mukund
• Jinendra Jain
• Shashank Sharma
• Anueesh G Garg
• Vandana Anand
• Bijoy Kumar Jain

Counsels for Respondents

• Prabhakar Rao Voruganti
• D. Bharathi Reddy
• Fatima

Case Synopsis & Summary

Renu Kunta Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh concerns a fatal road accident on 9 November 1994 in which the appellant allegedly, while driving an APSRTC bus, dashed a boy resulting in his death. The trial court convicted the driver under section 304-A IPC and an appellate court, followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in revision, upheld the conviction. In the Supreme Court, the appellant pressed that the record does not prove he was driving the offending vehicle or that the vehicle was driven rashly or negligently. The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses PWs 4, 5, and 11, but the evidence is marked by inconsistencies: the informant was illiterate and could not identify the bus number; PW 4 and PW 5 testified about the bus position or the number inconsistently with PW 11; the information that the bus number was later supplied is questioned; the bus reportedly sped away; the investigating officer stated details of the bus could be known only after several days; there is a mismatch about the bus side on the road and where the victim stood, and PW 11 remained largely uninjured while others claimed otherwise. In view of this unsatisfactory evidence, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction. The appeal is allowed, reflecting the stringent standard of proof required in cases under 304-A IPC when identification and vehicle particulars are uncertain.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-ACode of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 161

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the evidence on record does not establish that he was driving the vehicle or that it was driven in a rash or negligent manner. The evidence is unreliable and inconsistent: the informant (PW-11) is illiterate and could not affirm the bus number; PW-4 and PW-5 testified inconsistently about the bus’ number and its position on the road; the FIR allegedly named the accused but witnesses failed to confirm that identification; the bus details were known to investigators only after several days; the bus reportedly sped away after the incident. The defense argues that the prosecution has not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that convictions based on such inconsistent and partly exculpatory evidence should be set aside, entitling the accused to acquittal or reversal on the basis of lack of reliable identification and vehicle particulars.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that eyewitnesses supported the prosecution: the bus involved was AP9Z6991 and driven rashly, with the vehicle fleeing the scene. The evidence showed the victim sustained injuries consistent with a bus collision and the manner of driving was negligent. The informant and witnesses corroborated essential facts, including the incident location and the victim’s position. The accused’s conviction under 304-A IPC was therefore justified, and the judgments of the trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court in revision should be sustained.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

' ..__ I_ :~ [2008] 14 S.C.R. 512 A ## RENU KUNTA MALLAIAH _v._ STATE OF A.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1026 of 2001) B OCTOBER 16, 2008 # [DR. AR1JIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] _Penal Code, 1860:_ c s. _304-A_ - _Accident caused by_ a _bus_ - _Resulting in death of_ a _boy_ - _Conviction of the driver by trial court_ - _Upheld by appellate court, and High Court in revision_ - _HELD: In view of unsatisfactory nature of evidence, prosecution failed to estabfish the accusations_ - _Conviction set aside_ - _Evidence._ D The appellant-accused was prosecuted for commission of an offence u/s 304-A IPC on the allegations that _.r·_ he, while driving an A.P.S.R.T.C. bus in a rash and negligent manner, at about 1800 hrs on 9.11.1994 dashed the E[bus against a boy as a result ][of ][which ][the victim received ] bleeding injuries and died in the hospital. The trial court convicted the accused. The appellate court, and the High Court in the revision petition, upheld the conviction. In the instant appeal the accused reiterated his stand F[taken before the trial court, the appellate ][court ][and the ] I High Court that the evidence on record did not establish[k. ] that he was driving the offending vehicle or that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Allowing the appeal, the Court G H HELD: 1.1 PWs 4 and 11 stated that at the time of occurrence it was dark. Interestingly in the First lnforma- _>-_ tion Report the name of the accused-appellant and bus number was indicated. PW 11, the informant, stated that 512 513 RENU KUNTA MALLAIAH _v._ STATE OF A.P. _-----!_ PWs 4 and 5 told him the number of the bus. He admitted A that he was illiterate and did not know the number of the bus. But, PWs 4 and 5 did not state that they had either noted or told PW-11 the number of the bus. It was the accepted case of PWs 4, 5 and 11 that the offending vehicle after the occurrence sped away from the place. In that B event, it is improbable that PWs 4 and 5 could have noted the long number of the bus. The investigating officer has _----t_ stated that he could know the details of the bus after about four days of the occurrence. [para 3] [515-E-F] --1 1.2 Both PWs 4 and 5 stated that the bus was being[c ] driven on the left side. But PW 11 stated that the bus was being driven on the right side. The evidence on record shows that the bus hit the victim on the right side and the boy was on the.middle of the road. Evidence of PW 11 is also to the extent that he was with the victim boy at the D spot. Strangely, he has not suffered any injury. In contrast, PWs. 4 and 5 have stated that there was nobody near the child. [para 3] [515-G-H; 516-A] 1.3 In view of the unsatisfactory nature of evidence, the prosecution cannot be said to have established the accusations. The conviction as recorded by the Courts below is set aside. [para 3] [516-B] E _J_ CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1026 of 2001 From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.1.2000 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No. 780 of 1999 F C. Mukund, Jinendra Jain, Shashank Sharma, Anueesh G Garg, Vandana Anand and Bijoy Kumar Jain for the Appellant. "*· Prabhakar Rao Voruganti, D. Bharathi Reddy and Fatima for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. 514 A **DR.** ARIJIT **PASAYAT, J.** 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant. The accused faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal B Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagtial, found the accused guilty and convicted him to sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a sum of Rs.4,000/- was imposed as fine with default stipulation. In appeal the first appellate Court reduced the sentence c to six months but maintained the fine and the default stipulation. The revision petition as noted above was dismissed. A 2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: On 9.11.1994 at about 1800 hours, at Mallia! when Thota Satish was playing by the side of the Road and when Gandia 0 Buchaiah (PW-11) was also present there at that time, the accused herein drove the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP9Z6991 with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Theta Satish, due to which, the said Satish received bleeding injuries and while undergoing treatment, the E said Satish died in Civil Hospital, Jagtial. On the complaint given by Gandia Buchaiah, a case in Cr. No. 82 of 1994 under Section 304-A l.P.C., was registered against the accused and cop. ies of F.l.R. were sent to all concerned. Subsequently, the police investigated the case and charge-sheet was laid against F the accused U/s 304-A l.P.C., and after appearance of the accused before the Lower Court, he was supplied with the documents and was also examined, for which he pleaded not guilty of the charge u/s 304-A l.P.C. To substantiate the above charge, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 11 and Exs. P1 to P11 G were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.') regarding the incriminating circumstances that are appearing against the accused and he sim-:ply stated either "false" or "does not know" for all the que;stions H put to him. He did not state anything about manner of accident . r RENU KUNTA MALLAIAH _v._ STATE OF A.P. 515 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] ~ at least for the last question: Do you wish to say anything about A this case." he simply stated that there is nothing to say and he did not explain being the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus as to how exactly, the accident took place. Exs. 01 and 02 are the contradictory portions in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW. 5 and Ex. 03 is the contradictory portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. B statement of PW11. Except this, neither any defence witness ---1 has been examined on behalf of the accused, nor the accused himself came into the box to explain as to how the accident took place. Stand of the appellant before the trial court, First Appel-[c ] late Court and the High Court was that the evidence on record does not establish that he was driving the vehicle stated to be involved in the occurrence or that he was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Same was reiterated in this appeal. _,~-i ~~1 _.J,_ 3. Learned courisel for the respondent-State on the other[D ] hand supported the judgment of the trial court and the High Court. PWs 4, 5 & 11 were stated to be eye witnesses. PWs 4 & 11 stated that at the time of occurrence it was dark. Interestingly in the First Information Report the name of the accused appellant E and bus No. was indicated. PW 11, the informant stated that PWs 4&5 told him the number of bus. He admitted that he is illiterate and does not know the number of the bus. Interestingly, PWs 4&5 did not state that they had either noted the number of bus or had told the PW 11 about the number of bus. It was the F accepted case of PWs 4, 5 & 11 that the offending vehicle after the occurrence sped away from the place. If that was so, it is improbable that PWs 4&5 could have noted the long number of the bus. The investigating officer has stated that he could know the details of the bus after about four days of the occurrence. Both PWs 4 & 5 stated that the bus was being driven on the left G side. But PW 11 stated that the bus was being driven on the right side. The evidence on record shows that the bus hit the victim on the right side and the boy was on the middle of the road. PWs 4&5 have stated that they did not say anything about the accide1nt to PW 11. Contrary to this PW 11 stated that the H 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. - A bus No. was given to him by PWs 4&5. Evidence of PW 11 is also to the extent that he was with the victim boy at the spot of occurrence. Strangely he has not suffered any injury. In contrast PWs. 4&5 have stated that there was no body near the child. In view of the aforesaid unsatisfactory nature of evidence, the pros- - B ecution cannot be said to have established the accusations. The conviction as recorded by Courts below is set aside. ( _r_ 4. Appeal is allowed. R.P. Appeal allowed.