THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.635 OF 2011
ORDER:
1 Heard Sri R.Pavan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2 The petitioner herein was tried as accused by the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.2507 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 03.11.2010, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.438 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, while concurring with the findings arrived at by the trial Court dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 14.03.2011. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the petitioner / accused. 2 3 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.08.2009 at about 11.00 PM, the petitioner being the driver of a Boxer motorcycle bearing No.AP 9 AD 2973 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a woman aged about 60 years. Due to the said accident she fell down and received head injury and she succumbed to the injuries on 16.08.2009 while undergoing treatment. P.Ws.1 to 3 who are the home guards witnessed the incident and they caught hold of the petitioner and handed over him to P.S. Panjagutta. P.W.10 who is an independent witness also witnessed the accident. On the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.1 the criminal law was set into motion and after completion of the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
4 The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that he and P.Ws.2 and 3 caught hold of the petitioner immediately after the accident and handed over him in the police station. P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed in unequivocal terms that they witnessed the accident. The evidence of P.W.1 is also to the effect that the motor cycle dragged the deceased to some extent after hitting her. Thus, it indicates the speed and rashness of the motorcyclist. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is trustworthy and inspiring the mind of the Court. The presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 at that point of time was also explained by them. On that night they were on duty and as per 3 the directions of the SHO, Panjagutta, they came on to the road to close down the shops. There is no enmity between the petitioner and P.Ws.1 to 3 to implicate him in the case. The evidence of P.W.6 goes to show that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. The evidence of P.W.10 is that he saw the motorcycle dashed against two ladies while crossing the road and out of them one lady received head injury and later the police took the rider of the vehicle along with the. P.W.10 identified the petitioner as the driver of the motorcycle. Therefore, there is no ambiguity or any doubt with regard to the identity of the petitioner being the person responsible for the accident and he was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution established the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
5 As far as the quantum of sentence imposed on the petitioner, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 14.03.2011 and it is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted by this Court on 18.03.2011 the petitioner came out of the jail. Thus, the petitioner was in jail for about a week.
6 Having regard to the fact that the said offence relates to the year 2009 i.e. about 14 years back and inasmuch as the petitioner was in jail 4 for about a week, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is concerned.
7 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the courts below is modified and the said sentence is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Except the said modification in all other aspects this revision is dismissed.
8 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
------------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 20.09.2023 Kvsn