Section 304-A IPC | Conviction Upheld Without Injury to Accused, But Imprisonment Converted to Fine Due to Prolonged Litigation: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed a conviction under Section 304-A IPC for rash driving causing death, rejecting challenges to the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts. In a significant exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Court converted the six-month simple imprisonment into a fine of Rs. 2,000, citing the accused’s advanced age and two decades of litigation hardship.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Gangala Srinivasulu, was convicted under Sections 304-A, 338, and 337 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of two coolies due to rash and negligent driving of a lorry on 07.03.2007. The prosecution alleged that while transporting white stones, the petitioner, acting as driver, fell asleep at the wheel, causing the lorry to collide with a milestone and overturn, burying the two workers under the cargo.

Key Facts

• The accident occurred on 07.03.2007 on a road in Nellore District
• Two coolies sitting atop the lorry died instantly; five others in the cabin sustained minor injuries
• The petitioner was alleged to be the driver; he sustained no physical injuries
• P.W.1 (lorry cleaner) and P.W.5 (another occupant) testified that the petitioner was driving and had fallen asleep
• P.Ws. 2, 3, and 4, also in the cabin, did not corroborate the prosecution’s version regarding the driver’s identity
• The lorry overturned to the right side; all occupants in the cabin were thrown forward
• The petitioner was arrested, not surrendered voluntarily
• The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 8 documents

Procedural History

• 07.03.2007: Accident occurred
• 08.03.2007: FIR registered at Kavali Police Station
• 28.05.2013: Trial Court (Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kavali) convicted petitioner under Sections 304-A, 338, and 337 IPC; sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment + Rs. 1,000 fine for Section 304-A; Rs. 1,000 fine for Section 338; Rs. 5,000 fine for Section 337
• 23.06.2014: IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2013, confirming conviction and sentence
• 14.07.2014: Criminal Revision Case No. 1347/2014 filed before the High Court
• 08.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Subhendu Samanta

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner:

• Denied being the driver at the time of accident
• Claimed false implication due to salary dispute with lorry owner
• Highlighted absence of injuries to himself despite lorry overturning
• Argued that P.Ws. 2 - 4, who were eyewitnesses, did not support prosecution
• Contended that conviction was based on unreliable testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 5
• Requested leniency due to age (over 50) and prolonged litigation since 2007

For the Respondent (State):

• Asserted that P.W.1 and P.W.5 were credible material witnesses
• Stated their testimony was corroborated by the Investigating Officer and Motor Vehicle Inspector
• Argued that absence of injury to petitioner does not disprove driving, as he may have braced himself
• Maintained that the concurrent findings of two courts cannot be disturbed unless perverse

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Quashing of conviction and sentence under Sections 304-A, 338, and 337 IPC
• Suspension of the appellate judgment dated 23.06.2014
• Dispensation of filing certified copy of trial court order
• Grant of bail in the interest of justice
• Reduction of punishment to fine only

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 304-A IPC can be set aside on revision merely because the accused sustained no injuries, despite credible eyewitness testimony identifying him as the driver, and whether the Court may convert imprisonment to a fine under its revisional powers.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel relied on the physical improbability of a driver escaping injury when a lorry overturns, arguing that the absence of trauma to the accused undermined the prosecution’s version. He cited State of U.P. v. Krishna and Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. to argue that conviction cannot rest on doubtful or uncorroborated testimony. He emphasized the petitioner’s age and the 17-year pendency of the case as grounds for judicial mercy.

For the Respondent

The State contended that the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.5 was consistent, detailed, and corroborated by the investigation. It argued that the absence of injury to the accused does not negate his role as driver, as he may have been braced or positioned differently. The State invoked K. Srinivas v. State of A.P. to affirm that revisional courts must not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, acknowledging that while P.Ws. 2 - 4 did not support the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.5 provided direct testimony identifying the petitioner as the driver and describing his negligent conduct - specifically, that he was asleep at the wheel.

"It is the case of the defence that petitioner was not involved in the accident and was not driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. Upon a careful reading of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (P.Ws.), it appears that the accident occurred due to the lorry driver slept while driving."

The Court noted the logical inconsistency raised by the petitioner: if the lorry overturned to the right and all occupants were thrown forward, the driver - seated at the front - should have sustained injuries. Yet, the petitioner remained uninjured.

"Surprisingly, in this case, the driver of the offending vehicle was not surrendered before the Court voluntarily, but he was arrested. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not driving the lorry at the relevant point of time. Though P.Ws.1 and 5 stated that the petitioner was driving the lorry, but in this juncture, as the petitioner could not sustain any injury, the presence of the petitioner becomes doubtful."

Despite this, the Court held that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless the findings are perverse. It observed that both lower courts had independently evaluated the testimony and found it credible. The Court emphasized:

"When in a case, two views are possible and both the courts below have adopted a view, this court being a revisional court has to accept the view adopted by court below unless the view is so perverse to accept."

The Court concluded that the conviction under Section 304-A IPC was legally sustainable. However, it exercised its discretion under Section 309 CrPC and its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to mitigate the sentence, noting:

"It appears that the present petitioner is more than 50 years old and has been roaming around the courts for 20 years. The petitioner has already suffered mental agony and hardship for a long period."

The Verdict

The criminal revision was dismissed in part and allowed in part. The conviction under Sections 304-A, 338, and 337 IPC was confirmed. The six-month simple imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC was converted into a fine of Rs. 2,000, to be paid in addition to the existing fine of Rs. 1,000 already imposed. The petitioner was directed to deposit the Rs. 2,000 fine before the trial court within four weeks from the date of judgment. The fines under Sections 338 and 337 IPC were left undisturbed. All pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Conviction May Stand Despite Physical Improbability

• Practitioners must recognize that absence of injury to an accused in a vehicular accident does not automatically invalidate eyewitness testimony identifying him as the driver
• Courts may uphold convictions if the prosecution’s version is internally consistent and corroborated, even if alternative explanations exist
• Defense arguments based on physical improbability must be supported by expert testimony or forensic evidence to be persuasive

Revisional Courts Will Not Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perverse

• The threshold for interference under Section 397 CrPC remains high: only perverse or arbitrary findings are subject to revision
• Courts will not substitute their own view of evidence merely because another interpretation is plausible
• This reinforces the principle that appellate and trial courts are the primary forums for factual determination

Sentencing Discretion in Prolonged Cases Is a Recognized Mitigating Factor

• Courts may invoke inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to convert imprisonment to fine where accused has endured prolonged litigation

• Age, health, and time spent in legal proceedings are valid considerations for sentence modification

• Practitioners should routinely raise these factors in sentencing hearings and revision petitions, especially in non-violent, negligence-based offenses

• Where imprisonment is imposed under Section 304-A IPC, consider filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking conversion to fine if the accused is elderly and the case has dragged for over a decade

• Always document the accused’s health, employment status, and family responsibilities to support mitigation

• Do not assume that acquittal is the only remedy - sentence modification is a viable and often overlooked outcome