S.Hari Hara Rao vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2555 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.635 OF 2011

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri R.Pavan Reddy, 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 XIV

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.2507 of

2009 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. During the

course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.9. 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 rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by

the said judgment dated 03.11.2010, the petitioner preferred Criminal

Appeal No.438 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the learned

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the learned Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, while concurring with the findings arrived at by the trial Court

dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 14.03.2011. Questioning

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

3 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.08.2009 at about

11.00 PM, the petitioner being the driver of a Boxer motorcycle bearing

No.AP 9 AD 2973 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against a woman aged about 60 years. Due to the said accident

she fell down and received head injury and she succumbed to the injuries

on 16.08.2009 while undergoing treatment. P.Ws.1 to 3 who are the

home guards witnessed the incident and they caught hold of the

petitioner and handed over him to P.S. Panjagutta. P.W.10 who is an

independent witness also witnessed the accident. On the basis of the

complaint lodged by P.W.1 the criminal law was set into motion and after

completion of the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for

the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

4 The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that he and P.Ws.2 and 3

caught hold of the petitioner immediately after the accident and handed

over him in the police station. P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed in unequivocal

terms that they witnessed the accident. The evidence of P.W.1 is also to

the effect that the motor cycle dragged the deceased to some extent

after hitting her. Thus, it indicates the speed and rashness of the

motorcyclist. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is trustworthy and inspiring

the mind of the Court. The presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 at that point of time

was also explained by them. On that night they were on duty and as per

the directions of the SHO, Panjagutta, they came on to the road to close

down the shops. There is no enmity between the petitioner and P.Ws.1

to 3 to implicate him in the case. The evidence of P.W.6 goes to show

that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects in the crime

vehicle. The evidence of P.W.10 is that he saw the motorcycle dashed

against two ladies while crossing the road and out of them one lady

received head injury and later the police took the rider of the vehicle

along with the. P.W.10 identified the petitioner as the driver of the

motorcycle. Therefore, 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.

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

appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 14.03.2011 and it is only after

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

18.03.2011 the petitioner came out of the jail. Thus, the petitioner was

in jail for about a week.

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

2009 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 courts below is concerned.

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

petitioner by both the courts below 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.

8 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall

stand closed.

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

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 20.09.2023 Kvsn