Telangana High Court
Miryala Anil Kumar, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 15 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1065 OF 2009
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 26.06.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated 19.05.2008 in C.C.No.385 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Luxettipet (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2006 when LW1/Sangam Ramaiah along with the deceased and other injured persons namely LW2/Edupu Ashok, LW3/Mujjiga Ganesh and LW4/Navva Ravinder were moving towards Jannaram from Luxettipet in an auto bearing No.AP 1U 6331 of LW5/Chakali Ravi @ Srinivas, one lorry bearing No.AP 15T 7398 came from Jannaram side at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto. As a result, the auto 2 turned turtle causing injuries to LWs.2 to 5 and one of the injured person namely Kummari Yadanna died. Basing on the said facts, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jannaram registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2005 under Sections 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet.
4. The trial Court vide judgment dated 19.05.2008 in C.C.No.385 of 2008 found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections.337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC, the accused was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.5,500/-, an amount of Rs.1,000/- was directed to be awarded to PWs.3 and 6 each towards compensation. The sentence was directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred an appeal.
3
5. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.06.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the alleged offences. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the both the Courts upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record rightly passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court found that PWs.1 and 2, who were the inmates of the lorry identified the accused and their version corroborated with the specific overt acts committed by the 4 accused to constitute the alleged offences. The evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 6, the inmates of the auto, categorically deposed the rash and negligent acts committed by the driver of the lorry, which resulted in death of one Yadanna and injuries to the inmates of the auto. It is also to be seen that though PWs.3, 4 and 6, being the inmates of the auto, had no possibility to notice the driver of the lorry, but their evidence rightly substantiates with the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, 8 to 11 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.P1, P3 to P9 successfully established the case of the prosecution, the identity of the accused and the rash and negligent acts committed by the accused. Thus, the trial Court found that the accused committed the offences alleged under Sections.337 and 304(A) of IPC and passed the judgment cited supra.
9. The appellate Court upon re-appreciating the evidence available on record also found that the accused had rashly driven the lorry and as a result, the auto turned turtle which ultimately resulted in the death of one person and injuries to others. Therefore, the appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
5
10. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 03.07.2009 granted interim suspension of the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner, by the appellate Court pending Revision and released him on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each in a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet, Adilabad District. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.
11. In the present case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections.304-A and 337 of I.P.C., which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
12. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as fourteen long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court in inclined to take a lenient view and modify the sentence imposed against the petitioner, by the appellate Court, while confirming the guilt of the accused for the offences under 6 Sections.304-A and 337 of I.P.C. Therefore, the sentence imposed against the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
13. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case in all other aspects, stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 15.02.2024 ESP 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL 311 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1065 OF 2009 Dated: 15.02.2024 ESP