Telangana High Court
Manda Kumaraswamy, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 10 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.742 OF 2008
ORDER:
The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for PCR Cases at Warangal, in C.C.No.994 of 2001, for the offence punishable under Section 304- A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A.No.104/2005 before the Sessions Judge, Warangal and the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Aggrieved by same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2000, the accused who is the driver of the offending vehicle drove in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the vehicle turning turtle and causing instantaneous death of two passengers and also injuries to nine others. The injured were examined as PWs.1 to 9.
2
4. The learned Magistrate having examined PWs.1 to 14 out of whom PWs.1 to 9 were injured and marking Exs.P1 to P32 which are X-ray reports and Wound certificates of injured, found that the revision petitioner was responsible for causing the accident and for the deaths of the passengers in the vehicle.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision has to be allowed on the following grounds;
i) The speed at which the vehicle was going was not stated by any of the witnesses.
ii) It is not the case that the driver was in drunken condition.
iii) It is not known whether there was any hindrance while driving on account of the uneven road when the accident had taken place.
iv) The said act of accident which was caused is not intentional.
v) PWs.1 to 9 were all going to the market and it is highly probable that all of them had instigated the accused to drive the vehicle in a faster manner to reach the destination and due to faster driving it may have resulted in accident.
6. On the basis of above arguments, the learned counsel seeks intervention of this Court in reversing the Judgment of the Courts below.
3
7. The said grounds are not tenable as they are assumptive and imaginative. It is not the case that the accused was not the driver of the vehicle. The driving is not disputed. It is not the case that there was any hindrance or any such event that occurred on account of which the accident had taken place.
8. As seen from the evidence, PWs.1 to 9 were injured while travelling in the said vehicle. The manner in which the accident had taken place clearly indicates that the driver was at fault in driving the vehicle in such a manner resulting in the vehicle turning turtle and causing the death of two persons and injuries to 9 others. The incident speaks for itself and the grounds which are agitated on behalf of revision petitioner cannot form basis to reverse the concurrent findings of the Court below.
9. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2000 and nearly 24 years have passed by, further, there are no other cases pending against the revision petitioner, which fact is not disputed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period of three months.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner to 4 six months. The trial Court shall cause appearance of the accused/revision petitioner 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: 10.06.2024 tk