Telangana High Court
Modugu Srinivasa Reddy, Nalgonda. vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 20 June, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.592 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), against the Order dated 18.03.2010 in Crl.A.No.24 of 2009, on the file of the learned Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, confirming the conviction against the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner - accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that in the month of April, 2007, the revision petitioner was driving Eicher Van, over took the auto of PW-3 and dashed against the cyclist hitting him from behind. The cyclist was proceeding from the left side of the road. On the account of the impact the cyclist died instantaneously.
4. On behalf of prosecution, PWs-1 to 10 were examined and Exs-P1 to P7 were marked. Learned trial Judge placed reliance on the evidence of PW-3, who was the auto driver, regarding the 2 identity of the accused. PW-2 was also an eye witness to the said incident. According to her, she had shifted the deceased to the hospital.
5. Since, the evidence of witnesses, PWs-2 and 3, PW-3 being independent witness, the trial Court found that it was the accused, who had caused accident resulting in the death of cyclist.
6. The conviction was questioned before the Sessions Court in the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge found favour with the findings of the learned Magistrate and confirmed the conviction.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the identification of PW-3 is highly improbable, since he was a stranger. Test identification parade was not conducted and for the first time PW-3 has identified before the Court. Learned counsel alternatively submitted that in the event of finding the accused guilty, the sentence of imprisonment be reduced, since he was aged 23 years, when the incident has taken place and going to jail for a period of 15 years will have an adverse impact on his life. 3
8. The evidence of PWs-2 and 3, eye witnesses to the incident is convincing. The accident is not in dispute and only for the reason of identification before the Court by PW-3 during trial, cannot form basis to disbelieve his evidence. The incident such as these have lasting impact on the mind of the witnesses, as such the identification by PW-3 in the Court cannot be disbelieved.
9. However, keeping in view that the incident is of 2007, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to three months.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.06.2024 vsl