Maligireddy Chenna Reddy vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2533 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL


     CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1566 of 2011


ORDER:

The present criminal revision case is filed against the

Judgment in Crl.A.No.83 of 2009, dated 27.07.2011 passed

by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract

Court), Khammam.

2. The brief facts of the case are that charge sheet has

been filed against the petitioner/accused for the offences

punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The case of the

prosecution is that on 13.02.2006 the deceased Gudipati

Ravi and LW.4 Gantala Veerabrahma Chary came to

Gurralapadu and attended work at the house of Dumpala

Pedda Pullaiah and at about 4 p.m. the deceased was

returning on his Hero Punch Motor Cycle No. AP-5-AG-4024

and when he reached near the house of Chilkuri Nagachary

on Khammam-Kodad R & B Road, mean time the accused

who is the driver of R.T.C. Bus No.AP 11-Z-895 while

proceeding to Miryalagudem drove the said bus in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed behind the deceased Hero

Punch, resulting which the deceased fell down on the road

and sustained severe injury and the injured was shifter to

Cure Hospital Khammam for treatment. The deceased

succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. After

completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet

which was taken on file as C.C.No.122 of 2006.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents as

required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The

accusation under Section 304-A of IPC was read over and

explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1

to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8.

6. Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned

counsel on both sides and after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence on record, the learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam (for short 'the

trial Court') took a lenient view against the accused. Hence

the accused is convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year

and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for three (03) months. The remand period

already undergone is set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

7. Aggrieved by which, the accused preferred an appeal

before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract

Court), Khammam, (for short 'appellate Court') the learned

appellate Court after considering the facts and

circumstances and upon perusing the Judgment in

C.C.No.122 of 2006, dated 22.07.2009 has dismissed the

appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the

learned trial Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/

accused as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for respondent-State. Perused the record.

9. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below

with regard to guilty of the revision petitioner/accused and

the learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not place

anything before this Court, which would discredit the

evidence. Therefore, no interference was 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

2006 and almost 17 years have passed and during this

period the revision petitioner must have repented for what he

did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it

is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the

period already undergone by the revision petitioner while

maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court.

10. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the

conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed

by the appellate Court. However, the sentence of rigorous

imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sections

304-A I.P.C., is reduced to the period already undergone by

the revision petitioner/accused while maintaining the

sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court against the

petitioner/ appellant/accused.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Dated: 20.09.2023 vsu