Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1697 Tel
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1613 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner is questioning the conviction by the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class in C.C.No.110 of 2004, for the
offence under Section 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code
sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years for
the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and 6
months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 of
the Indian Penal Code. The said conviction was confirmed by the
IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar
in Crl.A.No.98 of 2008 vide Judgment dated 24.09.2009.
Aggrieved by the said confirmation, the revision
petitioner/accused is before this Court.
2. Heard.
3. The case against the petitioner is that on 10.03.2004 while
the accused was driving the car, he lost control and hit a mango
tree which was situated on the right side of the road in front of
Hyderabad Cylinder Factory, due to which one person died and
another person received injuries. PW1 is the eye-witness to the
said accident who lodged a complaint with the Police on the same
day.
4. The police examined the witnesses including the Motor
Vehicle Inspector and other eye-witnesses and filed charge sheet.
Charge was framed against the accused under Section 304-A of
the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and
marked Exs.P1 to P11 in support of their case. The learned
Magistrate found favour with the prosecution case and convicted
the petitioner. The conviction was questioned in appeal before the
Sessions Court and the Sessions Court confirmed conviction.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that the vehicle was in moderate speed and was not driven
in a rash and negligent manner, however, trying to save the
animal, which came on to the road in-front of the car, he turned
the vehicle resulting in hitting the mango tree.
6. The said version of the learned counsel cannot be accepted.
In the event of driving at a moderate speed, there may not a
fatality due to the impact with the tree. The said fatality itself goes
to show that the driver was driving the vehicle at a high speed.
7. Learned counsel submits that there are no other cases
against the revision petitioner and he has parents aged above 80
years, wife and children who are dependents on him for survival.
He further submits that the petitioner was in jail for 14 days.
8. Taking into consideration, the said circumstances, this
Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the
period already undergone. However, the fine component is
increased by Rs.25,000/- and the said amount shall be paid by
the revision petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. Failing which, the accused shall undergo
default sentence of three months.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case is partly allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J
Date: 25.04.2024 tk
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!