Telangana High Court
Syed Tahsin, Medak District. vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 24 June, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1445 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.83 of 2009, on the file of Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, confirming the judgment dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Zaheerabad, Medak District in C.C.No.226 of 2006.
2. Heard Sri K.Lakshmaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioner is that on 04.06.2006, while he was returning to village in an Auto along with some others, the offending vehicle, which is a lorry came in the opposite direction in a high speed and dashed against the Auto. On account of impact of the lorry, Auto was damaged and the Auto Driver received grievous injuries. The injured Driver Prabhakar was taken to the hospital, however, he died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. 2
4. The criminal complaint/Ex.P.1 was filed by P.W.1 who was passenger in the Auto driven by the deceased. According to his evidence, the lorry Driver was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident.
5. Learned Magistrate having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 and also marking Exs.P.1 to P.8 on behalf of the prosecution found that the evidence of P.W.1 is convincing along with other evidence that it was accused who had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing accident and consequent death of the Driver of the Auto.
6. The conviction was questioned before the learned Sessions Judge who confirmed the conviction.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the lorry Driver/accused is a stranger to P.W.1 and if at all he was sitting in the Auto and received injuries on account of the accident, it is highly improbable for him to identify the lorry Driver. The other two witnesses who are P.W.2 and P.W.5 did not identify the accused and their evidence is hearsay.
7. P.W.1 was admittedly present in the Auto which was involved in the accident. Only for the reason of P.W.2 and P.W.5 stating that they came to know about the accident and 3 their evidence is hearsay that does not in any manner effect the convincing evidence of P.W.1.
8. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Courts below regarding rash and negligent act of the accused driving the lorry resulting in the accident. Accordingly, conviction is confirmed. However, keeping in view that the accident happened on 04.06.2006 and nearly 18 years have passed by, further, there are no cases of similar kind against the accused, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to six months.
9. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed. 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: 24.06.2024 dv