Telangana High Court
Bathula Venkateshwarlu , Venkatesham, vs State Of A.P., Rep By P.P., on 3 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1975 OF 2009
ORDER:
The revision petitioner/accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet, in CC.No.650 of 2005, vide Judgement dated 19.05.2008, for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same the accused preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.130 of 2008 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, vide Judgment dated 15.09.2009, while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.08.2005, the deceased, PWs.2 and 3 were in the Auto which was driven by PW7. When they reached near Suryapet bus stand, the lorry driver hit the Auto at high speed resulting in the deceased death instantaneously and PWs.2 and 3 receiving injuries.
2
4. The Court below having examined injured witnesses PWs.2 to 5 and driver of the Auto PW7, found that PWs.2 to 5 and 7 have identified the lorry driver as the person driving the lorry when the accident had taken place. In the Court below, the identification of accused went unchallenged.
5. Conviction was recorded by the trial Court and the said conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court when the accused preferred appeal before the Sessions Court.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the deceased died on account of Auto turning turtle and not on account of the impact. The eye-witnesses PWs.2 to 5 and PW7 have clearly stated that while they were proceeding in Auto near new bus stand, Suryapet, the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the Auto. The result of the impact was the Auto turned turtle and PWs.2 and 3 received injuries and were taken to the hospital.
7. I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the Court below regarding complicity of the accused. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of guilt. However keeping in view that there are no other cases against revision petitioner and the case is of the 3 year 2005, the sentence of imprisonment of two years is reduced to six months.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner from two years to six months. The Trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the revision petitioner/Accused and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 03.07.2024 tk