Telangana High Court
Polepally Pentaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1619 of 2013
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner was the driver of Tata Mobile Auto, while going along with deceased and others including P.Ws.2 and 3, the said vehicle hit a tree. According to the prosecution case, the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused.
2. On hearing the death of the deceased, P.W.1, who is the father of deceased lodged complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, police filed charge sheet under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC.
3. Learned Magistrate, having examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8 out of whom, P.Ws.2 and 3 were the eye witnesses and injured persons, who were sitting in the Tata Mobile Auto, the offending vehicle, convicted the accused and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304-A IPC and six months under Section 338 and one month for the offence under Section 337 IPC vide judgment in C.C.No.229 of 2010, dated 2 03.12.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, R.R.District.
4. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2012 had confirmed the conviction vide judgment dated 30.07.2013.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that none of the witnesses spoke about any kind of rash and negligent driving by the revision petitioner. For the reason of speed driving, that in itself would not suffice to regard rash and negligent driving by the revision petitioner. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Paila Sanyasi Rao v. State of A.P (2023)(2) Andhra LD(Criminal) 390).
6. The facts in the present case and the facts of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner differ. In the said judgment cited, the deceased person was trying to cross the road and accident happened. The Court found that since deceased had suddenly tried to cross the road, an offence under Section 304-A IPC was not made out against accused therein. However, in the present case, P.Ws.2, 3 and others were sitting in 3 the auto, when the accident happened. The way in which accident took place, it can be safely inferred that the version of the witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3, who stated that auto was driven in a rash and negligent manner is probable. The auto hit a tree resulting in injuries and the fatality.
7. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding recorded by the Courts below. However, keeping in view that there are no other offences of similar nature, which is not disputed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months.
8. Since the accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the accused and send him to prison to serve out remaining period of sentence. The remand period if any shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. [[[ __________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 06.08.2024 kvs