Telangana High Court
P.Mahender vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 March, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1560 OF 2013
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.07.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.496 of 2012 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated 04.04.2012 in C.C.No.891 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2007, at about 08.15 hours, when deceased viz., Smt. Suvarna was proceeding on her moped bearing No.AP-28-AB-3582 from her residence to the work place, on the way, when she was passing by ESI cross roads, SR Nagar, the accused drove the water tanker bearing No.AP-09-J-0642 in a rash and 2 negligent manner at high speed and dashed her moped from behind, due to which, she fell down on the road, sustained bleeding injuries and became unconscious. Immediately, she was shifted to NIMS hospital, Panjagutta and while undergoing treatment, she was succumbed to injuries on 23.09.2007, due to complications of fracture of pelvis. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.").
4. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court vide judgment cited supra, found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. Petitioner/accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
3
6. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.04.2012, the petitioner/appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.496 of 2012 before the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court after examining the material facts and upon considering the trial Court judgment in C.C.No.891 of 2008 has dismissed the criminal appeal and the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months imposed by the trial Court is modified to simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine amount of Rs.250/- is enhanced to fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same and contended that both the Courts, upon appreciating the 4 oral and documentary evidence available on record in right perspective, passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
9. There is concurrent finding of both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court with regard to the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused did not place anything before this Court, which would discredit the evidence on record. 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 2007, almost seventeen years have been lapsed 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 imposed by the trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, which was reduced to three months by the appellate Court, to one month.
5
10. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was modified by the appellate Court. However, the sentence imposed by the trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, which was further reduced to three months by the appellate Court, is reduced to one month. The remand period already undergone by the accused, if any, shall be set-off against the terms of the sentence imposed to him under Section 428(1) of Cr.P.C.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 20.03.2024 mnv