Telangana High Court
Kashinath, Nizamabad. vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 14 June, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.968 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.11.2008 in C.C.No.264 of 2006, on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nizamabad, modified by the order dated 23.04.2010 in Crl.A.No.91 of 2008, on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Additional 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 and 6 months of imprisonment under Section 338 of IPC. The said conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court, the present Revision is filed.
4. The facts of the case are that on 10.01.2004, the revision petitioner/accused, driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner hit the pedestrians who are examined as P.W.3 and her 2 child while crossing the road at Dichpally Railway Station. On account of the impact, the minor child of P.W.2 died and P.W.2 received grievous injuries.
5. For the reason of causing accident, the Police had investigated the case and filed charge sheet under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC. On consideration of the prosecution evidence, learned trial Judge found that revision petitioner had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner causing instantaneous death of child of P.W.2 and also P.W.2 received grievous injuries.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that P.W.2 was injured at the scene and the driver is stranger to her and her identifying him for the first time in the Court cannot be believed. For the reason of Police failing to conduct test identification parade during the course of investigation, the identity for the first time before the Court below cannot be believed.
7. The case of P.W.2 is that while she was crossing the road along with her minor child, a lorry came at a high speed and caused the accident. P.W.1 is also an eye-witness to the said 3 incident. Even according to him, while he was standing at a distance of 30 yards from the place of accident, he observed that the accused has caused accident and ran from the scene. In view of identification of P.Ws.1 and 2, their narration of incident cannot be disbelieved. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court cannot be interfered with. However, keeping in view that the accused was not involved in any other accidents which the Public Prosecutor does not dispute, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of 6 months imprisonment as confirmed by the Sessions Court for a period of 3 months.
8. Accordingly, the Revision is partly allowed reducing the sentence of 6 months imprisonment to 3 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: 14.06.2024 dv