Telangana High Court
Md. Raheem, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 25 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1613 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner is questioning the conviction by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class in C.C.No.110 of 2004, for the offence under Section 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The said conviction was confirmed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar in Crl.A.No.98 of 2008 vide Judgment dated 24.09.2009. Aggrieved by the said confirmation, the revision petitioner/accused is before this Court.
2. Heard.
3. The case against the petitioner is that on 10.03.2004 while the accused was driving the car, he lost control and hit a mango tree which was situated on the right side of the road in front of Hyderabad Cylinder Factory, due to which one person died and another person received injuries. PW1 is the eye-witness to the 2 said accident who lodged a complaint with the Police on the same day.
4. The police examined the witnesses including the Motor Vehicle Inspector and other eye-witnesses and filed charge sheet. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 in support of their case. The learned Magistrate found favour with the prosecution case and convicted the petitioner. The conviction was questioned in appeal before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court confirmed conviction.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the vehicle was in moderate speed and was not driven in a rash and negligent manner, however, trying to save the animal, which came on to the road in-front of the car, he turned the vehicle resulting in hitting the mango tree.
6. The said version of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. In the event of driving at a moderate speed, there may not a fatality due to the impact with the tree. The said fatality itself goes to show that the driver was driving the vehicle at a high speed. 3
7. Learned counsel submits that there are no other cases against the revision petitioner and he has parents aged above 80 years, wife and children who are dependents on him for survival. He further submits that the petitioner was in jail for 14 days.
8. Taking into consideration, the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. However, the fine component is increased by Rs.25,000/- and the said amount shall be paid by the revision petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, the accused shall undergo default sentence of three months.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case is partly allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 25.04.2024 tk