Dandu Hari Babu, vs State, Rep. By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1121 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.905 of 2006

ORDER:

Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the learned

III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, West

Godavari in Crl.A.No.50 of 2003, dated 08.05.2006, the revision

petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case.

2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :

The petitioner is a resident of Palakoderu village & Mandal

and he is a lorry driver by profession. On the intervening night of

15/16-05-2000 at about 12.15 am., P.W.4 along with P.Ws.1, 2 & 5 and

the deceased Pulaparthi Venkateswara Rao (herein after referred as

'deceased') were proceeding in Ambulance bearing No.AP 16 V 1433 from

Sri Venkateswara Nursing Home, Palakol to Machilipatnam. At that

time, the petitioner being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 37 T 8349,

drove the same, in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite

direction and dashed against the ambulance, resulting which, the

deceased succumbed to injuries and other persons received injuries.

Immediately, injured P.W.4 gave a report to police. Basing on the said

report, police registered a case in Cr.No.34 of 2000 under Sections 304-A

and 337 IPC against the petitinoer. After receipt of post-mortem

certificate, MVI report, wound certificates of the injured persons and

after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. The case was

taken on file as C.C.No.408 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Judicial I

Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram.

3. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial

Judge convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under

Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment

for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to

suffer simple imprisonment for three months. He was also sentenced to

pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one

month for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC.

4. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the revision

petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2003 on the file of

the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge(FTC) Bhimavaram. After

considering the material on record, the appellate Court dismissed the

appeal, vide Judgment dated 08.05.2006 confirming the conviction and

sentence of the trial Court.

5. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the cause of

death was not due to the accident. He relies on the evidence of P.W.3,

doctor, who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased.

He pleaded that as per the evidence of P.W.3, the cause of death of the

deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock and also due to liver disease

and lung disease, as such, there was no rash and negligent driving on

the part of the petitioner.

7. This Court perused the entire material on record. A perusal of the

evidence reveals that as many as six persons received injuries in the said

accident. The deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock and also due to

liver disease and lung disease. Further, the vehicle in which the

prosecution witnesses were travelling is an ambulance. In such a

situation, the petitioner/accused should have been more cautious when

ambulance is coming in opposite direction. This, itself indicates that the

petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the

relevant point of time. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with

the conviction passed by both the Courts below.

8. In that view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that

there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by both

the courts below. However, as the incident took place in the year 2000

i.e., 21 years back, this court is inclined to reduce the sentence of

imprisonment imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304-A

IPC.

9. IN THE RESULT, the present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

confirming the conviction recorded by both the Courts below for the

offence under Section 304-A IPC. However, the sentence of imprisonment

awarded under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from one year (01) to three

(03) months, while maintaining the fine amount imposed by the both the

courts below for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC.

Further, the petitioner is directed to surrender forthwith before the trial

court to serve the remaining sentence.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

_______________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J 3rd March,2022.

RPD.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.905 of 2006

Dated : 03-03-2022

RPD