Telangana High Court
T.Sayi Reddy vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp on 13 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2426 of 2012
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed seeking to call for the records and set aside the order of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.382 of 2010, dated 22.11.2012 confirming the order of the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.488 of 2009, dated 08.10.2010.
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. 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 Pradesh 1", wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any 1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 2 appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the Sub Inspector of Police, Panjagutta police station on completion of the investigation in crime no. 509 of 2009 filed charge sheet before the trial Court alleging that at 08.00 PM on 14.05.2009 near R.S brother's bus stop, Ammerpet one Devendar was waiting to enter into a bus and at that time an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 825 Metro Express driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him and caused serious injuries to him. On that M.Raju, who is related to victim gave complaint to the police and FIR was registered. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and he was tried for the aforesaid offences.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.
3
5. 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 and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six (06) months. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.382 of 2010 before the Court of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By its judgment dated 22.11.2012 the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the same the present revision is filed.
6. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.
7. 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 shown me anything, which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is 4 concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2009 and almost 15 years have passed and during this period the 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.
8. 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 simple imprisonment for a period of six 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: 16.02.2024 mmr/gvl