Telangana High Court
Bandaru Venkateswara Rao, Khm Dist. vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 27 June, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1213 OF 2014
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 28.03.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, at Khammam (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated 28.10.2011 in C.C.No.399 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr.Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rama Kotaiah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 09.03.2010, at about 08:00 A.M., when Mr. Sunnam Kannaiah, was coming to the house on foot, a Tata Magic Vehicle, coming towards Charla from Venkatapuram, dashed him which caused a head injury. It is stated that Irpa Chander Rao (PW2), Koram Sammaiah (PW3) and Yaka Chiranjeevi (LW5) shifted him to the Primary Health Centre, Edhira. Then Mr. Syamala Somaraju (PW5), who is the Medical Officer provided the first aid to him and advised to take him to 2 Khammam for better treatment. While, he was being shifted to Khammam, the said Sunnam Kannaiah died. Thus, the petitioner/accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.") and Sections 3 r/w Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, "the M.V. Act").
4. The trial Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2011 in C.C.No.399 of 2010 found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. and Sections 3 r/w 181 of the M.V. Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Sections 3 r/w 181 of the M.V.Act and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.
5. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and 3 erroneously passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that both the Courts, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record have rightly passed their respective judgments and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the defense, none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that, the version of PW1/son of the deceased was that on 09.03.2010, he received a telephonic information that his father met with an accident, sustained severe injuries and admitted in Edira P.H.C. and that he along with his family members went to the said hospital and found his father with severe injuries, lying unconscious. PW1 further deposed that the Doctor advised them to shift his father to Khammam Hospital and while shifting in the Ambulance, he died.
9. PWs.2 and 3 deposed that about three or four months ago, at about 8:30 A.M., when the crime vehicle was moving from 4 Charla towards Venkatapuram, it came from the back side of the deceased at a high speed and hit him resulting in the death of the deceased. PW5/Doctor examined the deceased immediately after the accident and he deposed that on 09.03.2010, PWs.2 and 3 brought the deceased with a head injury upon him. Then he provided first aid and referred him to Bhadrachalam Government Hospital, for better treatment. PW6, who is the panch witness for the inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased, deposed that he was present along with LW13, at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased and they opined that the deceased died in the road accident. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 7 to 9 established that the deceased Kannaiah died in the road accident on 09.03.2010. PWs.2 and 3 identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the accident. PW8/Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle issued Ex P5 and opined that the accident did not occur due to mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. Therefore, the prosecution proved its case with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and that the accused drove the crime vehicle without possessing any valid driving licence. Hence, the trial Court rendered its judgment.
5
10. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the evidence available on record also observed that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C. and Sections.3 r/w 181 of the M.V.Act. and rendered the impugned judgment.
11. This Court vide order dated 13.06.2014 suspended the operation of impugned judgment pending Revision and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail, on condition of the petitioner furnishing personal bond for Rs.10,000/- together with two sureties for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
12. In the case on hand, both the Courts held that the petitioner was guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and Sections.3 r/w 181 of the M.V.Act., which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as ten long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed against 6 the petitioner to that of the period of imprisonment which he already undergone while upholding the fine amount.
14. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case in all other aspects, stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 27.06.2024 ESP