Telangana High Court
Md.Masthan , Musuthdar vs The State Of Ap., on 3 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.808 OF 2014
O R D E R:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the Judgment dated 04.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2011 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar (hereinafter referred as 'the learned appellate Court') confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 12.01.2011 in C.C.No.1208 of 2005 (Old C.C.No.402 of 2004) passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Rajendranagar (hereinafter referred as 'the learned trial Court').
02. As there was no representation on behalf of petitioner, this Court appointed Amicus Curiae on behalf of petitioner to assist this Court to pass appropriate orders. Heard Ms. P.Padma Latha Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of petitioner and Sri K.Rama Kotaiah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.
03. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.06.2004 at about 10:00 PM., PW2 loaded Tomatoes in his DCM Van bearing 2 No. AP 02 V 4705 and was proceeding towards Hyderabad on National Highway-07 along with cleaner by name Narasimha and J.Rama Krishna, Owner of the vehicle (hereinafter referred as the deceased Nos.1 and 2) and one Mohd.Khan (hereinafter referred as the deceased No.3) from Madhanapally of Chittor District and when he reached flyover bridge of Thondupally, accused drove Lorry bearing No. AP 13 W 7221 at high speed in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed their DCM van, due to which deceased No.1 died on the spot and deceased No.2 died while undergoing treatment, other inmates of DCM van received injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by PW2, the Police, Shamshabad Police Station registered a case in Crime No.215 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
04. The learned trial Court vide Judgment dated 12.01.2011 passed in C.C.No.1208 of 2005 (Old C.C.No.402 of 2004) found petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred an appeal.
3
05. The learned appellate Court vide Judgment dated 04.04.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2011 dismissed the appeal confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.
06. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective Judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
07. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned appellate Court rightly passed the impugned Judgment and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.
08. Before the learned trial Court, on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW17 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.
4
09. The learned trial Court upon careful consideration of the material available on record found that PW1 to PW3 and PW6 who are injured and eyewitnesses to the accident, have categorically stated that accused drove the crime lorry at high speed and hit their DCM van, causing the death of the deceased Nos.1 to 3 and injuries to them. It is also established by prosecution witnesses that the driver of the crime lorry was in sleeping condition at the time of accident and he ran away after the accident. Moreover, PW3 identified the accused-driver. PW13-Doctor issued wound certificates under Exs.P8 to P10 opining that PW1, PW3 and PW6 have received grievous injuries in the said accident. The postmortem examination reports of the deceased Nos.1 to 3 have been marked as Exs.P5 to P7, which clearly shows that they died in the road traffic accident. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent and corroborating with each other, thereby, the prosecution established its case against accused that he drove the crime lorry at high speed and in a negligent manner and dashed against DCM van resulting in death of three person and injuries to PW1, PW3 and PW6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court by way of its Judgment convicted and sentenced petitioner as stated supra.
5
10. The learned appellate Court upon re-appreciating the material available on record confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against petitioner for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC.
11. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide Order dated 15.04.2014 passed in CRL.R.C.M.P.No.1296 of 2014 suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending this Criminal Revision Case and enlarged petitioner on bail. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.
12. In the present case on hand, the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court concurrently held that petitioner herein was guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., as there are no grounds much less valid grounds, or irregularities, or illegalities, to interfere with the well considered Judgments of both the Courts and accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
13. However, having regard to the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae, and upon considering the fact that 6 petitioner underwent mental agony by roaming around the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed against petitioner from one year to six months of Rigorous Imprisonment. Petitioner is further directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) within a period of two months from today to the credit of learned trial Court. If petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On such deposit, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be confiscated by the State towards fine amount. The legal heirs of the deceased Nos.1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- in equal proportion, by filing appropriate application before the learned trial Court.
14. Except the above modification, this Criminal Revision Case in all other aspects, stand dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 03-JUL-2024 KHRM