THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2148 OF 2011
ORDER:
1 Petitioner herein was tried as accused by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, in C.C.No.2516 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 181 and Section 134 r/w 177 of Motor Vehicles Act. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. 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 simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The learned Magistrate also found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, for the offence under Section 134 r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 06.04.2011, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2011 and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, while concurring with the findings given by the trial Court dismissed the said 2 appeal by judgment dated 23.09.2011. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the petitioner / accused. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.02.2005 at about 5.15 p.m. the petitioner drove the auto bearing No.AP 1 U 5236 rashly and negligently and at high speed and dashed the deceased Kanthamma on her back at FCI office in Mancherial due to which Kanthamma sustained head injury and injuries on nose and ear and succumbed to the injuries on 25.02.2005. At the relevant point of time the auto was not insured and that the petitioner was not having valid driving licence. Hence the charge.
3 P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses to the accident. They categorically deposed about the factum of accident wherein the petitioner drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from her behind. They identified the petitioner as the driver of the auto. P.W.3 further stated that immediately after the accident he, P.W.2 and the petitioner shifted the deceased to hospital. Though it was admitted by P.Ws.2 and 3 and also the defence taken by the petitioner that there were speed breakers, the accident took place which means that though there were speed breakers at the scene of offence because of the rash and negligent driving of the auto 3 by the petitioner though not at high speed. The identity of the petitioner was established by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 as he himself accompanied to the hospital while the deceased was being shifted after the accident. Moreover, the petitioner himself surrendered before the investigating officer. Nothing is on record to doubt the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in witnessing the accident. On the other hand, the petitioner has also not suggested any enmity between him and P.Ws.2 and 3 to depose against him. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was not having valid driving licence and the auto was also not validly insured. From all these aspects, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and under Sections 3 r/w 181 and Section 134 r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4 As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the appellate court dismissed the appeal on 23.09.2011 and it is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted by this Court on 24.10.2011 the petitioner came out of the jail. Thus, the petitioner was in jail for about a month.
5 Having regard to the fact that the said offence relates to the year 2005 i.e. about 18 years back and inasmuch as the petitioner was 4 in jail for 30 days, 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.
6 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed under all counts 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.
7 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal revision case shall also stand dismissed.
------------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 26.09.2023 Kvsn