Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nelimarla Jagannadha Rao, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 18 February, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1463 of 2006
ORDER:
Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the VIII
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)Guntur in Crl.A.No.244 of 2004, dated
25.08.2006, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision
case.
2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :
The petitioner/accused was working as driver of lorry
bearing No.AP 16 U 5565. The deceased is a resident of Nallacheruvu,
Guntur. While so, on 12.09.2003 at about 5.30 pm., the
petitioner/accused drove the above said lorry, in a rash and negligent
manner, without blowing horn and hit the deceased from behind, while
he was going on his scooter bearing No.AP 7K 169 at 'O'line
Nallachevruvu, Guntur. Due to the said act, the deceased fell down and
the lorry ran over him and he died on the spot. P.Ws.1 & 2 witnessed
the incident. Based on the report of P.W.1, police registered a case in
Cr.No.123 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC
against the petitioner/accused and after completion of investigation, they
filed charge sheet. The case was numbered as C.C.534 of 2003 on the
file of the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.
3. In support of the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined
and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. No evidence has been adduced on
behalf of the defence. The accused was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C., which was denied by him.
4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial
Judge convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section
304-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to suffer
simple imprisonment for two months.
5. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the
petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2004 on the file
of the Court of VIII Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Guntur. The
appellate court after an elaborate discussion dismissed the Appeal by the
impugned judgment.
6. Heard Sri K.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there are speed breakers at the
scene of offence, hence the question of driving the lorry at high speed
does not arrive. As such, he pleaded that there is no rash and negligent
driving on the part of the petitioner/accused at the time of accident and
finally, learned counsel seeks to take a lenient view in awarding the
sentence of imprisonment, particularly as the offence took place in the
year 2003.
8. Per contra, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed
the same contending inter alia that the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is
consistent and sufficient to convict the petitioner. The version of P.W.1
was clearly corroborated by the medical evidence.
9. As seen from the evidence on record, P.Ws.1, 2 & 10 figured as
eye-witnesses to the incident. P.Ws.1 & 2 specifically stated that the
petitioner/accused, drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner without blowing horn at the scene of offence and hit the scooter
of the deceased from his behind, due to which, the deceased fell down
and the lorry ran over the deceased and he died instantaneously. This
act on the part of the petitioner shows that he drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner. In such circumstances, there is nothing to
disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2. Their evidence is also corroborated
by the medical evidence. Taking into consideration of all the facts and
circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction.
10. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed
confirming the conviction imposed by both the Courts below. However, in
view of the above facts and circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment
alone is reduced from six months (6) to two (2) months. The petitioner
is directed to surrender before the concerned Court to serve the
remaining sentence of the imprisonment.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
K. SURESH REDDY, J
18th February,2022.
RPD.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1463 of 2006
Dated : 18-02-2022
RPD
