Telangana High Court
Polepally Pentaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1619 of 2013
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner was the driver of Tata Mobile Auto,
while going along with deceased and others including P.Ws.2 and 3,
the said vehicle hit a tree. According to the prosecution case, the
accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the
accused.
2. On hearing the death of the deceased, P.W.1, who is the father
of deceased lodged complaint. On the basis of the said complaint,
police filed charge sheet under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC.
3. Learned Magistrate, having examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to
8 out of whom, P.Ws.2 and 3 were the eye witnesses and injured
persons, who were sitting in the Tata Mobile Auto, the offending
vehicle, convicted the accused and sentenced to simple
imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304-A IPC and
six months under Section 338 and one month for the offence under
Section 337 IPC vide judgment in C.C.No.229 of 2010, dated
03.12.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Chevella, R.R.District.
4. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad in
Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2012 had confirmed the conviction vide
judgment dated 30.07.2013.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that none of the witnesses spoke about any kind of rash and
negligent driving by the revision petitioner. For the reason of speed
driving, that in itself would not suffice to regard rash and negligent
driving by the revision petitioner. He relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Paila Sanyasi
Rao v. State of A.P (2023)(2) Andhra LD(Criminal) 390).
6. The facts in the present case and the facts of the judgment
relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner differ. In
the said judgment cited, the deceased person was trying to cross
the road and accident happened. The Court found that since
deceased had suddenly tried to cross the road, an offence under
Section 304-A IPC was not made out against accused therein.
However, in the present case, P.Ws.2, 3 and others were sitting in
the auto, when the accident happened. The way in which accident
took place, it can be safely inferred that the version of the witnesses
P.Ws.2 and 3, who stated that auto was driven in a rash and
negligent manner is probable. The auto hit a tree resulting in
injuries and the fatality.
7. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding recorded by
the Courts below. However, keeping in view that there are no other
offences of similar nature, which is not disputed by the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, the sentence of imprisonment is
reduced to three months.
8. Since the accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to
cause appearance of the accused and send him to prison to serve
out remaining period of sentence. The remand period if any shall be
given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
[[[
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.08.2024
kvs
