Telangana High Court
Miryala Anil Kumar, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 15 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1065 OF 2009
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the
judgment dated 26.06.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2008 on
the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for
short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated
19.05.2008 in C.C.No.385 of 2008 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Luxettipet (for short, "the
trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent State. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2006 when
LW1/Sangam Ramaiah along with the deceased and other
injured persons namely LW2/Edupu Ashok, LW3/Mujjiga
Ganesh and LW4/Navva Ravinder were moving towards
Jannaram from Luxettipet in an auto bearing No.AP 1U 6331 of
LW5/Chakali Ravi @ Srinivas, one lorry bearing No.AP 15T 7398
came from Jannaram side at a high speed, in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the auto. As a result, the auto
turned turtle causing injuries to LWs.2 to 5 and one of the
injured person namely Kummari Yadanna died. Basing on the
said facts, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jannaram registered a
case in Crime No.101 of 2005 under Sections 337 and 304-A of
Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and the same was taken on
file by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet.
4. The trial Court vide judgment dated 19.05.2008 in
C.C.No.385 of 2008 found the accused guilty for the offence
punishable under Sections.337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. and
sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and
pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337
of IPC, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
For the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC, the
accused was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two
years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for four months. Out of the total fine amount of
Rs.5,500/-, an amount of Rs.1,000/- was directed to be awarded
to PWs.3 and 6 each towards compensation. The sentence was
directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved thereby, the accused
preferred an appeal.
5. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.06.2009 in
Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2008 dismissed the appeal confirming
the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the
present Revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial
Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the
evidence available on record in proper perspective and
concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the alleged offences.
Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the
both the Courts upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available
on record rightly passed their respective judgments and the
interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to
dismiss the Revision.
8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined
PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the defence,
none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful
scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the trial Court found that PWs.1 and 2, who were the
inmates of the lorry identified the accused and their version
corroborated with the specific overt acts committed by the
accused to constitute the alleged offences. The evidence of PWs.3,
4 and 6, the inmates of the auto, categorically deposed the rash
and negligent acts committed by the driver of the lorry, which
resulted in death of one Yadanna and injuries to the inmates of
the auto. It is also to be seen that though PWs.3, 4 and 6, being
the inmates of the auto, had no possibility to notice the driver of
the lorry, but their evidence rightly substantiates with the case of
the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, 8 to 11
coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.P1, P3 to P9
successfully established the case of the prosecution, the identity
of the accused and the rash and negligent acts committed by the
accused. Thus, the trial Court found that the accused committed
the offences alleged under Sections.337 and 304(A) of IPC and
passed the judgment cited supra.
9. The appellate Court upon re-appreciating the evidence
available on record also found that the accused had rashly driven
the lorry and as a result, the auto turned turtle which ultimately
resulted in the death of one person and injuries to others.
Therefore, the appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial
Court and dismissed the appeal.
10. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order
dated 03.07.2009 granted interim suspension of the sentence of
imprisonment imposed against the petitioner, by the appellate
Court pending Revision and released him on bail on his executing
a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each in a like sum each
to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Luxettipet, Adilabad District. Thereafter, the matter
underwent several adjournments.
11. In the present case on hand, both the Courts have
concurrently held that the petitioner was guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections.304-A and 337 of I.P.C., which
finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
12. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered
mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before
the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as fourteen long
years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court
in inclined to take a lenient view and modify the sentence
imposed against the petitioner, by the appellate Court, while
confirming the guilt of the accused for the offences under
Sections.304-A and 337 of I.P.C. Therefore, the sentence imposed
against the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment
already undergone by him.
13. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case
in all other aspects, stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 15.02.2024
ESP
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1065 OF 2009
Dated: 15.02.2024
ESP
