Pasunadi Jahangir, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3663 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.33 OF 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of

Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/accused, challenging the judgment,

dated 31.12.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No.758 of 2012 by the

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby, the judgment,

dated 27.07.2012, passed in C.C.No.721 of 2010 by the I Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, convicting the

petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of

IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of one year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence

under Section 337 of IPC, was confirmed.

2 Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and Sri A.Venkateswara Rao, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.

3 The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 18.05.2010 at about

7-55 hours, while P.W.1 along with the deceased-B.Chenna Reddy

PC 2820 and P.W.2-Venkateshwar Naidu PC 2777 were crossing the

road from Telephone Bhavan side towards AG office side to go to RBI,

the accused being the driver of Hi-tech private bus bearing No.AP 29

U 6789 of Ganesh Travels came from iqbal minar side at high speed

and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased Chenna

Reddy and P.W.2, as a result, both of them fell down on the road and

sustained grievous injuries. The deceased succumbed to injuries

while being shifted to hospital. Basing on the complaint lodged by

PW.1, the police concerned registered Crime No.306 of 2010 for the

offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the petitioner

and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against him.

The case was taken cognizance under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC.

4 During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1

to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked. P.W.1 is the

direct witness to the accident. He had deposed in unequivocal terms

that at the time accident the accused drove the bus in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the deceased and P.W.2. P.W.5 -

doctor Mallika Rao deposed that on the even date he treated the

injured P.W.2 and opined that the injuries are simple in nature.

P.W.6 the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the

deceased opined that the death of the deceased was due to the

injuries he sustained in the accident. P.W.7 was a witness to the

scene of offence panchanama conducted in his presence. P.W.8

Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed that the accident was not due to

any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. P.W.9 is the investigating

officer who conducted investigation in the crime and laid charge

sheet. After full fledged trial, the accused was convicted for the

offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC as stated supra. The

appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence confirmed

the findings of the trial Court.

5 The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is clinching and

convincing. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborative on all aspects

viz., identification of the accused, rash and negligence and speed of

the vehicle at the time of accident. The petitioner has not placed on

record any clinching evidence to rebut the testimony of the

prosecution witnesses. The documentary evidence corroborates the

oral evidence of prosecution witnesses. The trial Court, after

carefully evaluating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution

proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The

basic ingredients of Sections 304-A and 337 IPC have been

established by the prosecution. Therefore, I see no reason to

interfere with the well reasoned judgments of both the Courts below.

As such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

6 As far as the quantum of sentence imposed against the

revision petitioner is concerned, the offence took place as long back

as in the year 2010. The petitioner/accused attended the trial Court

as well as the lower appellate Court in connection with this case.

Further, the petitioner/accused was on bail throughout the case

before the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. Further,

this Court, vide order, dated 04.01.2013, passed in

Crl.R.C.M.P.No.58 of 2013, granted suspension of sentence against

petitioner/accused and ordered his release on bail. It is brought to

the notice of this Court that in all, the petitioner/accused was in

judicial custody for a period of 6 days in connection with this case.

7 In B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, while reducing the punishment to the period already

undergone by the accused therein, laid down the general principles

that are to be borne in mind by the Courts while determining the

quantum of punishment. It was observed as follows:-

"The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the Court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the Court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part, but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and re-claim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial

(1974) 3 SCC 85

thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after 7 years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same."

8 Further, in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

V.K. Verma v. CBI2, it was held as follows:-

"In imposing a punishment, the concern of the court is with the nature of the act viewed as a crime or breach of the law. The maximum sentence or fine provided in law is an indicator on the gravity of the act. Having regard to the nature and mode of commission of an offence by a person and the mitigating factors, if any, the court has to take a decision as to whether the charge established falls short of the maximum gravity indicated in the statute, and if so, to what extent.

The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence.

The Appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping in good health, having had also cardio vascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about

(2014) 3 SCC 485

thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the Appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction."

9 While determining the quantum of sentence, the Court is

expected to strike balance between too harsh and too lenient view.

Balancing has to be done between the rights of the accused and the

needs of society at large. It would also be a daunting challenge to

preserve the trust of citizens when using the authority of the Courts

to convict an accused. In the instant case, the incident pertains to

the year 2010, i.e., more than 12 years ago. The petitioner/accused

has already undergone physical incarceration for about 6 days and

mental trauma for about 12 years. Keeping in view the provisions of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof

qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can

play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony

which he undergoes on account of protracted trial. Under these

circumstances, directing the petitioner / accused to serve the

remaining period of sentence imposed upon him would be unfair.

Article 21 of the Constitution would bring within its sweep, not only

expeditious trial but disposal of appeals and revisions. Having given

thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the facts mentioned above would

certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence,

while maintaining the conviction. Considering the totality of the

circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate that if the sentence

of imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone by the

petitioner/accused, the same would sub-serve the ends of justice.

10 Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction recorded against

the petitioner / accused, the sentence of imprisonment imposed

against him by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate

Court, is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone

by him.

11 With the above reduction / modification of sentence of

imprisonment, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, being

devoid of merit. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

______________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 13.07.2022.

Kvsn