Telangana High Court
Madapathi Santhu Kumar, Medak Dist. vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 1 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1443 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.86 of 2008, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST(POA) Act-Cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, confirming the judgment dated 19.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad in C.C.No.125 of 2004.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment by the trial Court and the same was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. The order of Sessions Court is now questioned in the present revision.
4. The case of the prosecution is that P.Ws.1 to 3 who are the parents and brother of the deceased child aged about 6 years were crossing the road on the date of incident. 2 According to the witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased girl went to attend a function and while returning, the incident occurred.
5. The prosecution produced witnesses 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge found that the revision petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident and consequently death of the child.
6. The Sessions Court also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and confirmed the conviction.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial Court and the first appellate Court failed to consider that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the Auto Driver since speed was not mentioned and also none of the family members P.Ws.1 to 3 received any injuries. In the said circumstances, if one analyses the situation, the girl was negligent and came on to the road resulting in the accident. In similar circumstances, in Bhagirath Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1 found that when a boy suddenly crossed the road and was hit by vehicle 1 1999 CRI.L.J.4237 3 resulting in the accident, the Rajasthan High Court interfered with the finding of the guilt by the Courts below and acquitted the accused. The same are the circumstances in the present case and accordingly, revision has to be allowed.
8. As seen from the record, it is not the case of the revision petitioner before the trial Court that the child has suddenly come on to the road and there was no time for the revision petitioner to even react to the said situation. When that is not the case of the revision petitioner, it is specifically stated by P.Ws.1 to 3 while they were heading to the village, the Auto Driver came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the child, it is apparent that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that speed factor and others factors were not specifically mentioned by the witnesses has no bearing in the present facts of the case. However, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to three months.
10. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial 4 Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court to three 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: 01.07.2024 dv