Rasamalla Satyanarayana, ... vs State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2744 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2148 OF 2011

ORDER:

1 Petitioner herein was tried as accused by the learned Principal

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, in C.C.No.2516 of 2005

for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC and Section 3

r/w Section 181 and Section 134 r/w 177 of Motor Vehicles Act.

During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 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 a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The learned Magistrate also found

the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w

Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly sentenced him to

suffer simple imprisonment for one month and further sentenced him

to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, for the offence under Section 134 r/w 177 of

the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated

06.04.2011, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2011

and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, while

concurring with the findings given by the trial Court dismissed the said

appeal by judgment dated 23.09.2011. Questioning the same, this

revision is preferred by the petitioner / accused.

2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.02.2005 at

about 5.15 p.m. the petitioner drove the auto bearing No.AP 1 U 5236

rashly and negligently and at high speed and dashed the deceased

Kanthamma on her back at FCI office in Mancherial due to which

Kanthamma sustained head injury and injuries on nose and ear and

succumbed to the injuries on 25.02.2005. At the relevant point of time

the auto was not insured and that the petitioner was not having valid

driving licence. Hence the charge.

3 P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses to the accident. They

categorically deposed about the factum of accident wherein the

petitioner drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

the deceased from her behind. They identified the petitioner as the

driver of the auto. P.W.3 further stated that immediately after the

accident he, P.W.2 and the petitioner shifted the deceased to hospital.

Though it was admitted by P.Ws.2 and 3 and also the defence taken

by the petitioner that there were speed breakers, the accident took

place which means that though there were speed breakers at the

scene of offence because of the rash and negligent driving of the auto

by the petitioner though not at high speed. The identity of the

petitioner was established by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 as he

himself accompanied to the hospital while the deceased was being

shifted after the accident. Moreover, the petitioner himself

surrendered before the investigating officer. Nothing is on record to

doubt the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in witnessing the accident. On the

other hand, the petitioner has also not suggested any enmity between

him and P.Ws.2 and 3 to depose against him. It is also an admitted

fact that the petitioner was not having valid driving licence and the

auto was also not validly insured. From all these aspects, the

prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable

doubt for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and under Sections 3

r/w 181 and Section 134 r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4 As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the appellate court

dismissed the appeal on 23.09.2011 and it is only after this revision

was admitted and bail was granted by this Court on 24.10.2011 the

petitioner came out of the jail. Thus, the petitioner was in jail for

about a month.

5 Having regard to the fact that the said offence relates to the

year 2005 i.e. about 18 years back and inasmuch as the petitioner was

in jail for 30 days, 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.

6 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed under all

counts 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.

7 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal revision

case shall also stand dismissed.

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

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 26.09.2023 Kvsn