Telangana High Court
A.Goverdhan Reddy vs The State Of A.P. And Another on 16 April, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1340 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.08.2009 in Crl.A.No.16 of 2009, on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide order dated 05.01.2009 in C.C.No.698 of 2006.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. The revision petitioner was a lorry driver who drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner resulting in causing accident of a nine year old boy who was on cycle. The lorry hit the boy while he was coming from a side lane on his cycle and having hit the cycle, the boy came under the rear wheels of the lorry.
4. Both the Courts below relied on the evidence of P.W.2 who is an eye-witness, not related to the boy. According to 2 P.W.2, while he was going to wine shop after getting water, he saw that the lorry was driven in a high speed on the right side of the road and in the meanwhile, the deceased boy who was coming on a cycle was hit by the lorry, for which reason, the boy fell down and the rear wheels of the lorry ran over the boy resulting in his instantaneous death.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that since the boy came under rear wheels, it cannot be said that the driver is at fault. If the accident had taken place on account of hitting the cycle by a lorry which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, the boy would have fallen underneath front wheels of the lorry. But, from the facts of the case, it can be assessed that the boy was negligent, for which reason, he came under the rear wheels of the lorry.
6. P.W.2 who is an eye-witness had narrated that while the lorry was going at a high speed on the road without observing other vehicles, 9 year old boy who was on the cycle came from a by-lane and the lorry hit him resulting in his falling down and on account of high speed, rear wheels of the 3 lorry ran over the boy resulting in his death. Only for the reason of boy falling under the rear wheels of the lorry, it cannot be said that the boy was negligent and the lorry driver was vigilant.
7. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the driver had driven the lorry at a high speed as narrated by P.W.2 resulting in the death of the 9 year old boy.
8. I do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Courts below in finding that the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner has wife, children and parents who are all dependent on him and his income for their survival.
10. Keeping in view that the accident is of the year, 2004 and nearly 20 years have been passed, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for a period of four months.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment to four 4 months. The trial Court shall cause appearance of the accused and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of sentence imposed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 16.04.2024 dv