Sunday, 12, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Gangavarapu Jairaj vs The State Of A.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 885 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 885 Tel
Judgement Date : 29 February, 2024

Telangana High Court

Gangavarapu Jairaj vs The State Of A.P. on 29 February, 2024

                                    1



     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.779 OF 2013

O R D E R:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the

judgment dated 13.03.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2012 on

the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District, at Vikarabad (for short, "the appellate

Court") in confirming the judgment dated 24.11.2011 in

C.C.No.236 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, Chevella, R.R. District (for short, "the trial Court").

2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard

Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing

for respondent State. Perused the record.

3. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on

10.02.2024. Even today also there is no representation on behalf

of the petitioner inspite of listing the matter under the caption,

"for dismissal". Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with

the matter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh 1, wherein it was categorically held that the High Court

cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter

without examining the merits.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.03.2010 the

petitioner/accused drove his motor cycle bearing No.AP 23 C

5704 in rash and negligent manner and dashed an Auto

consisting five passengers. Due to which, the passenger in the

Auto namely Narsimlu sustained injuries on his right leg, head,

other parts of the body and while shifting him to the hospital for

treatment the said Narsimlu died. Basing on the said facts, one

V. Ramulu, the uncle of the deceased filed the present complaint.

5. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra found the

petitioner/accused guilty for the offences under Section 304A of

IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for

short, "MV Act") and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default,

to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence

under Section 304-A of IPC. The accused is further sentenced to

pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offences under Sections 181 and

196 of MV Act, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for

(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720

fifteen days for the offences under the MV Act. All default

sentences were directed to run concurrently. Assailing the same,

the accused preferred an appeal.

6. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra, dismissed

the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.

Aggrieved thereby, the present Revision.

7. As per the grounds raised in the Revision, 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.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that 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.

9. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined

PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the defence,

none were examined but Ex D1 was marked. Upon careful

scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court

observed that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 shows that the accident

occurred due to the negligence of the accused. PW3 who is the

main witness deposed that as on the date of the accident, five

passengers were purported to have been travelling in the Auto

including the deceased Ramulu. The accused overtook the Tata

sumo in high speed and dashed the Auto due to which the

deceased sustained injuries and died. It can be seen that the

evidence of PW3 also corroborated with the evidence of PW5. The

accused was neither holding any driving licence nor insurance.

PW4 who signed Ex P2 inquest also stated that the deceased

sustained injuries on his right knee and died. Ex P6 also stated

that there were no mechanical defects in the vehicle and the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

accused. Therefore, the trial Court rendered the judgment cited

supra.

10. Upon an appeal being preferred, the appellate Court also

observed that all the prosecution witnesses unhesitatingly

supported the prosecution case and corroborated with eachother

and the accused failed to counter the same. Therefore, the

appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment

passed by the trial Court.

11. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order

dated 31.10.2013 suspended the sentence of imprisonment

imposed on the petitioner herein and ordered to release him on

bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-

with two sureties for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the

appellate Court, pending Revision. Thereafter, the matter

underwent several adjournments.

12. In the present case on hand, both the Courts have

concurrently held that the petitioner was guilty of the offences

punishable under Section.304A of IPC and Sections.181 and 196

of the MV Act, which finding, in my considered view, does not call

for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under

Section 397 Cr.P.C.

13. 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 eleven long

years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court

in inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence

imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment

already undergone by him.

14. 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: 29.02.2024 ESP

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Media

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter