Gorati Ramesh, Nalgonda., vs State Of Ap.,Thrlb.Nagar Ps. Rep Pp.,
2024 Latest Caselaw 1478 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1478 Tel
Judgement Date : 10 April, 2024

Telangana High Court

Gorati Ramesh, Nalgonda., vs State Of Ap.,Thrlb.Nagar Ps. Rep Pp., on 10 April, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

      CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.591 of 2014

ORDER:

The present criminal revision case is filed under Sections

397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated

13.03.2014 in Crl.A.No.134 of 2011 on the file of the learned

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, R.R. District at

L.B.Nagar, wherein the Judgment dated 10.08.2011 in

C.C.No.1712 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, R.R. District (for short 'the

trial Court') has been confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant

Sri. Kuntla Sudhakar Reddy lodged a report and stated that his

father K. Yadagiri Reddy and his younger sister R. Dhanamma

came from Uppal and after they got down from the auto and

while crossing the road to reach the house of complainant's

brother, the driver of Oil Tanker bearing No.AP 24T 8088 who

was proceeding from L.B.Nagar side drove his vehicle at high

speed and dashed to the father of complainant in a rash and

negligent manner. Due to which he received injuries on his head

severely and other parts of the body. Immediately, the injured

was shifted to the Kamineni Hospital, where the duty doctors

declared him dead. Hence, the complaint.

3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant,

Pws.1 to 6 were examined and got marked as Exs.P.1 to P.6. There

is no evidence adduced on behalf of the accused either oral or

documentary.

4. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the trial Court has passed the judgment in C.C.No.1712 of

2007 which reads as under:

" In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304 A of IPC and he is convicted of the same under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C.

On question of quantum of sentence accused pleaded two grounds. Considering the above I feel that a lenient view cannot be taken against the accused in imposing the sentence. Hence accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for ONE YEAR for the offence under Section 304 A of IPC and the accused is entitled to the benefit of Set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Accused is informed about his right of appeal, and if he has no means to engage a counsel to prefer appeal, he is at liberty to approach the District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District to get free legal aid."

5. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused

preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court and the

learned appellate Court after considering the facts and

circumstances and upon perusing the Judgment of the trial Court

in C.C.No.1712 of 2007, has dismissed the criminal appeal by

passing the following order:

"15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, R.R. District in C.C.No.1712 of 2007 dated 10.08.2011."

Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is

preferred.

6. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and

perused the record.

7. There are concurrent findings of both the Courts below

with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused did not

appear and place anything before this Court, which would

discredit the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as

far as conviction is concerned. In these circumstances and in the

interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of