Telangana High Court
State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., vs Nalla Thirupathi Reddy, on 13 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
CRL.APP.NO.752 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State of
Erstwhile Andhra Pradesh through the Public Prosecutor under
Section 377(1) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.')
against the judgment dated 31-01-2006 in CC.No.427 of 2003
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sulthanabad. The
trial Court while disposing CC.No.427 of 2003 having found
the sole accused, who is shown as respondent in the present
appeal guilty for the offence under Sections 337 and 304-A of
Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') convicted him for the
said offences under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. but imposed a
sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for one month with a fine
of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and also
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under
Section 304-A IPC with default sentence. The Court below
directed both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2 SSRN, J
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the State while
preferring the present appeal has claimed that the judgment
of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and
probabilities of the case. The trial Court having found the
respondent/accused guilty for the offence under Sections 337
and 304-A IPC, committed an error in awarding meager
sentence. The Court below ought to have seen that the Apex
court held time and again that undue sympathy could not be
shown to the accused and meager sentence cannot be
awarded, thereby, sought for enhancement of the sentence.
3. Before going into the merits of the appeal, it is
just and necessary to have a look over the judgment
impugned in the present appeal and whether the findings and
conclusions arrived by the Court below are justified. The sole
respondent in the present appeal has been prosecuted by
State through police, Srirampur with an allegation that he has
committed the offence under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC.
4. The following was the brief case of the
complainant as per the charge sheet :
On 09-09-2003 in connection with Ganesh festival,
people at Edulapur Village, conducted immersion of Ganesh
3 SSRN, J
Idols in Kamuni Cheruvu and in the said connection, they
have engaged Tractor bearing No.AP 15 U 4555 for carrying
the Ganesh Idols to the said Tank for immersion. The
respondent was the driver of the Tractor. The prosecution
has alleged that after the immersion of Ganesh Idol, when the
Tractor returned to the village, the villagers including Agimalla
Swamy and Sujan (who herein after will be referred as
'deceased'), PWs.5 to 9, who received injuries and some
others, sat in the trailer of the Tractor. The prosecution has
alleged that the accused drove the Tractor in high-speed,
in a rash and negligent manner and in the said process while
taking a turn, he could not control the vehicle. Therefore, the
trailer over-turned, thereby, the persons boarded into the
trolley were fell on the ground. The deceased Swamy and
Sujan have been suffered major injuries and died. Whereas,
PWs.5 to 9 suffered minor injuries.
5. In view of the above said incident and on the
complaint presented by PW.1, a case was registered in Crime
No.73 of 2003 and was investigated by PW.21. The
Investigating Officer having completed the other formalities
like examination of witnesses and conclusion of records
4 SSRN, J
including the post-mortem report etc., laid the charge sheet
against the respondent alleging that he has committed the
offence under Section 337 and 304-A I.P.C.
6. The Court below having furnished the copies of
charge sheet and other record, examined the accused under
Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.')
and on denial of allegations in the charge sheet by the
respondent/accused, the Court below conducted trial. During
the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 21 and
marked Exs.P1 to P47. On conclusion of the trial, the accused
was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the
material allegations/evidence, put forth before him. The Court
below having heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as
the appellants counsel, came to the conclusion that the
prosecution was able to prove the case against the
respondent for the offence under Sections 337 and 304-A of
IPC, thereby, convicted him as indicated above.
7. The present appeal has been filed questioning the
quantum of sentence. According to the judgment impugned
in the present appeal, it is very clear that the learned
Magistrate found the respondent/accused guilty for the
5 SSRN, J
offence under Section 337 of IPC and also under Section
304-A of IPC. Consequently, sentenced him to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs.500/-
for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and also sentenced
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year
and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section
304-A IPC with default sentence.
8. The brief grounds on which the present appeal is
filed indicates that the State was not happy with the said
sentence on the ground the Court below imposed a meager
sentence. The maximum sentence imposed under Section
304-A IPC is two years and or fine. The Court below having
appreciated the evidence and more particularly, in the above
referred circumstances was of the opinion that ends of justice
would meet, if the respondent/accused sentenced to undergo
the above referred sentence, thereby, imposed the said
punishment.
9. It is true, there was death of two persons and
more than five persons suffered minor injuries. However, the
circumstances elicited from the material witnesses clearly
indicates that there was a festival atmosphere in the Village
6 SSRN, J
on that particular day where the accident took place. One
can imagine the situation where there was Ganesh Idol
immersion, more particularly, in the state of Telangana where
people use to celebrate the Ganesh Idol Immersion in a
high-fi manner. There is no dispute about the manner of the
accident. As could be gathered from the evidence of material
witnesses, the accident occurred while the Tractor was
returning from Tank where the Ganesh Idol was immersed
and while the Tractor was taking a turn in the above stated
circumstances, there could not have been a chance or
opportunity for the respondent to drive the Tractor Trailer in
high speed, definitely there could have been the huge
gathering in the Village and people used to follow the Tractor
and other vehicles in which they have carried the Idols to the
Tank.
10. In fact, the evidence of witnesses examined
before the Court indicates that the Tractor over-turned while
the vehicle was taking a turn. The evidence of PWs.3, 6, 10,
15, 16, 17 is very clear that after the idol was immersed in
the Tank, they returned to village and the above referred
witnesses, deceased Swamy and Sujan and some others
7 SSRN, J
traveled in the Auto and while the vehicle was taking a turn
nearby, Edulapur Village, the accused said to have been
driven the Tractor in a negligent manner. Therefore, the
question of driving the vehicle in high-speed may not arise.
But the evidence of the above referred witnesses can be
considered that he was negligent in driving the vehicle. It is
true, the respondent while carrying so many people in the
trailer could have been vigilant and drove the vehicle
cautiously. It is not as if the accused was rash or negligently
driving the vehicle. The Court below while considering all the
circumstances including the evidence of material witnesses
was of the opinion that the accident took place due to the
negligent driving by the respondent/accused. Therefore,
imposed Rigorous Imprisonment for one year coupled with
fine and also Rigorous Imprisonment for a month for the
offence under Section 337 of IPC.
11. It has to be seen from the allegations in the
charge sheet, this offence took place about 20 years ago and
the above recorded sentence was imposed on the accused on
31-01-2006 more than 16 years lapsed from the date of the
judgment. Taking all this circumstances into consideration,
8 SSRN, J
this Court is of the opinion that simply because there is death
of two persons and more than 5 persons received injuries,
accused cannot be convicted with maximum sentence and the
other circumstances is also to be taken into consideration.
In view of the festival atmosphere at the time of the alleged
offence, there could not have been a chance for the accused
to drive the vehicle in high-speed or negligent manner,
thereby, the Court below imposed an appropriate sentence. It
is not known whether the accused undergone the above
referred sentences or obtained any bail from the Court below.
The learned Public Prosecutor had informed the Court that the
accused filed appeal before the District Court, Karimnagar and
challenged his conviction, but his appeal was dismissed and
the Criminal Revision filed by the accused against the
Judgment of District Court on his conviction was also
dismissed.
12. Therefore, the judgment and conviction recorded
by the trial Court can be confirmed but it is for the State to
verify whether the respondent/accused has undergone the
above sentence or whether he is on bail. In case if already
undergone sentence, the State need not take the accused into
9 SSRN, J
custody. However, if it is found that the respondent is on bail,
he shall undergo the sentence imposed by the trial Court.
13. In the result, Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions if any, are closed.
________________________
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J
13-02-2024.
PLV
