A.Goverdhan Reddy vs The State Of A.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 1534 Tel

Telangana High Court

A.Goverdhan Reddy vs The State Of A.P. And Another on 16 April, 2024

                              1




     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
     CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1340 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner

aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.08.2009 in Crl.A.No.16

of 2009, on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment passed by the

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide order dated

05.01.2009 in C.C.No.698 of 2006.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent-State.

3. The revision petitioner was a lorry driver who drove the

lorry in a rash and negligent manner resulting in causing

accident of a nine year old boy who was on cycle. The lorry

hit the boy while he was coming from a side lane on his cycle

and having hit the cycle, the boy came under the rear wheels

of the lorry.

4. Both the Courts below relied on the evidence of P.W.2

who is an eye-witness, not related to the boy. According to

P.W.2, while he was going to wine shop after getting water, he

saw that the lorry was driven in a high speed on the right

side of the road and in the meanwhile, the deceased boy who

was coming on a cycle was hit by the lorry, for which reason,

the boy fell down and the rear wheels of the lorry ran over the

boy resulting in his instantaneous death.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner

would submit that since the boy came under rear wheels, it

cannot be said that the driver is at fault. If the accident had

taken place on account of hitting the cycle by a lorry which

was driven in a rash and negligent manner, the boy would

have fallen underneath front wheels of the lorry. But, from

the facts of the case, it can be assessed that the boy was

negligent, for which reason, he came under the rear wheels of

the lorry.

6. P.W.2 who is an eye-witness had narrated that while

the lorry was going at a high speed on the road without

observing other vehicles, 9 year old boy who was on the cycle

came from a by-lane and the lorry hit him resulting in his

falling down and on account of high speed, rear wheels of the

lorry ran over the boy resulting in his death. Only for the

reason of boy falling under the rear wheels of the lorry, it

cannot be said that the boy was negligent and the lorry driver

was vigilant.

7. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the driver

had driven the lorry at a high speed as narrated by P.W.2

resulting in the death of the 9 year old boy.

8. I do not find any infirmity with the findings of the

Courts below in finding that the petitioner was guilty of the

offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits

that the petitioner has wife, children and parents who are all

dependent on him and his income for their survival.

10. Keeping in view that the accident is of the year, 2004

and nearly 20 years have been passed, this Court deems it

appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for a

period of four months.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly

allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment to four

months. The trial Court shall cause appearance of the

accused and send him to prison to serve out the remaining

part of sentence imposed. Miscellaneous applications

pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 16.04.2024 dv