Telangana High Court
Eshaboina Dilip Kumar vs The State Of Ap., on 22 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.62 of 2013
ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.01.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, Suryapet (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated 05.05.2012 in C.C.No.335 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy, (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 15.10.2009, at about 09:00 A.M., when the deceased viz., Rukkamma went to bazaar from the house, while she was walking on the cement road in front of the house of LW.5, the accused being the driver of Mahendra Tractor bearing temporary registration No.AP-24-AL-TR-6422, drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased, due to which, she fell down on the cement road and the front wheel and big wheel of the Tractor ran over her. As a result, the 2 deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries to her head, shoulder and died on the spot. Basing on the complaint lodged by LW.1, who is the younger brother of the deceased, a case in Crime No.127 of 2009 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.")
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On behalf of the defence, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court vide judgment cited supra found accused guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. Petitioner/accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2012 before the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court after examining the material facts before it and upon considering the trial court judgement in C.C.No.335 of 2010 has dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the 3 judgment passed by the trial Court. 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 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 are concurrent findings of both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court with regard to guilt of the petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused did not place anything before this Court, which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, with regard to the sentence, the offence took place long back in the year 2009 and almost 15 years have been lapsed and during this period, the petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to set 4 off the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner/accused and to enhance the fine amount to Rs.50,000/-.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. however, the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, out of which, Rs.45,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner/accused to the legal heirs of deceased, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, else in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months.
11. Except the above modification, no further interference of this Court is warranted with respect to the order passed by the trial Court, as confirmed by the learned appellate Court.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Dated: 22.03.2024 mnv