Chekkala Upender Rao, Khammam ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2541 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1051 OF 2012

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri S.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State.

2 The petitioner herein was tried as accused by the learned II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam, in C.C.No.134 of

2008 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. During the

course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.8. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire

evidence found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under

section 304-A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to

suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine

of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 14.12.2010, the petitioner

preferred Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the

learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at

Khammam, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while concurring

with the findings arrived at by the trial Court concurring with the findings

of the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 29.06.2012, modified the

sentence of simple imprisonment for one year imposed by the trial Court

to that of three months, while maintaining the fine amount. Questioning

the same, this revision is preferred by the petitioner / accused.

3 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.01.2008 one

Rudra Venkataiah boarded the auto bearing No.A.P.20 V 5108 at

Mudigonda centre to go to Khammam. The driver of the said auto drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes on

seeing buffaloes on the road, resulting which, the auto turned turtle due

to which Venkataiah sustained severe injuries to his right leg and was

shifted to New Life Hospital, Khammam, where he succumbed to the

injuries. The petitioner is the driver of the said auto. Hence the charge.

4 The evidence of P.W.1 is circumstantial. P.W.2 is the direct

witness to the accident. His evidence is that on that date he along with

Venkataiah boarded the auto at Mudigonda to go to Khammam. When

the auto reached near bricks factory, after passing Mudigonda police

station, the auto turned turtle as the driver applied sudden brakes. In

that all of them sustained injuries and the deceased Venkataiah sustained

severe injuries. Immediately they were shifted to hospital in 108

Ambulance. It is his further evidence that the accident occurred due to

the negligent driver of the driver of the auto and he can identify the

driver if he was shown to him and on seeking the petitioner he stated

that the petitioner who was present in the court hall is the driver of the

auto at the relevant point of time.

5 P.W.3 also deposed in the same manner as was deposed by P.W.2

and she also identified the petitioner as the driver of the auto at the time

of accident. P.Ws.4 and 5 who are panchas for the scene of offence and

inquest and P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead

body of Venkataiah.

6 The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is corroborating with each other

regarding the manner of accident and also identity of the petitioner being

the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. However, in their

cross examination, P.Ws.2 and 3 admitted that there was a curve near

the police station and the scene of offence is nearby the police station. In

such circumstances, the driver of the auto must have taken some care

and caution while driving the auto. Instead, the petitioner became

responsible for the accident by driving the auto at a high speed and by

applying sudden brakes.

7 There is no ambiguity or any doubt with regard to the identity of

the petitioner being the person responsible for the accident and he was

the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time. Hence, I am

of the considered opinion that the prosecution established the guilt of the

petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC beyond

all reasonable doubt.

8 As far as the quantum of sentence imposed on the petitioner, the

appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 29.06.2012 and it was only after

this revision was admitted and bail was granted by this Court on

04.07.2012 the petitioner came out of the jail. Thus, the petitioner was

in jail for about a week.

9 Having regard to the fact that the said offence relates to the year

2008 i.e. about 14 years back and inasmuch as the petitioner was in jail

for about a week, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken

in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner

by the appellate court is concerned.

10 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the

petitioner by the learned appellate court is modified and the said

sentence is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had

already undergone. Except the said modification in all other aspects this

revision is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this

criminal petition shall also stand dismissed.

------------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date:20.09.2023 Kvsn