Telangana High Court
A. Devendar, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 13 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2584 of 2012
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed seeking to set aside the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.190 of 2011, dated 20.12.2012 confirming the order of the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.708 of 2008, dated 30.03.2011.
2. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 21.02.2024 and 06.03.2024. Even today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner/accused. Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1", wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss 1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 2 any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2008 at 10.00 am, the deceased boy K.Karthik was standing on the right side of the road eating ice cream at Saleem nagar. In the meanwhile, the driver of the crime vehicle, a goods trolly bearing No.AP 29 U 2104 had driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the boy. The vehicle ran over the boy, due to which he received injuries and died on the spot. They caught hold of the driver of the goods vehicle and came to know his name. Pws.1 to 6 who were taking tea in front of the hotel of Pw.2 have witnessed the incident. Pw.1 lodged a complaint, Ex.P-1 and Pw.11, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case and issued FIR, Ex.P-5 and handed over further investigation to Pw.10.
4. During the course of investigation, Pw.10 examined the witnesses and visited the scene of offence and drawn rough 3 sketch of the scene of offence. He visited the hospital and held inquest over the dead body of Karthik in the presence of Pws.7 and 9 under Ex.P-2 and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Pw.9, the medical officer conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body and issued Ex.P-4/PME report. Pw.8, motor vehicle inspector inspected the vehicle and issued Ex.P-3. The owner of the vehicle produced the accused before the police and accused surrendered to the police. After completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.
6. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Six (06) 4 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.190 of 2011 before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By its judgment dated 20.12.2012, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the same the present revision is filed.
7. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.
8. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has also not placed anything before this Court, which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2008 and almost 16 years have passed and during this period the 5 revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused, while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court against him.
9. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six (06) months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Dated: 13.03.2024 mmr/gvl