Telangana High Court
Madapathi Santhu Kumar, Medak Dist. vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 1 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1443 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner
aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.86
of 2008, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Offences
under SC/ST(POA) Act-Cum-V Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, confirming the judgment
dated 19.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Zaheerabad in C.C.No.125 of 2004.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State.
3. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to 1 year
imprisonment by the trial Court and the same was confirmed
in appeal by the Sessions Court. The order of Sessions Court
is now questioned in the present revision.
4. The case of the prosecution is that P.Ws.1 to 3 who are
the parents and brother of the deceased child aged about 6
years were crossing the road on the date of incident.
According to the witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased girl
went to attend a function and while returning, the incident
occurred.
5. The prosecution produced witnesses 1 to 7 and marked
Exs.P.1 to P.5 before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge
found that the revision petitioner had driven the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident and
consequently death of the child.
6. The Sessions Court also concurred with the findings of
the trial Court and confirmed the conviction.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would submit that the trial Court and the first appellate
Court failed to consider that there was no rashness and
negligence on the part of the Auto Driver since speed was not
mentioned and also none of the family members P.Ws.1 to 3
received any injuries. In the said circumstances, if one
analyses the situation, the girl was negligent and came on to
the road resulting in the accident. In similar circumstances,
in Bhagirath Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1 found that
when a boy suddenly crossed the road and was hit by vehicle
1999 CRI.L.J.4237
resulting in the accident, the Rajasthan High Court interfered
with the finding of the guilt by the Courts below and
acquitted the accused. The same are the circumstances in
the present case and accordingly, revision has to be allowed.
8. As seen from the record, it is not the case of the
revision petitioner before the trial Court that the child has
suddenly come on to the road and there was no time for the
revision petitioner to even react to the said situation. When
that is not the case of the revision petitioner, it is specifically
stated by P.Ws.1 to 3 while they were heading to the village,
the Auto Driver came in a rash and negligent manner and hit
the child, it is apparent that the accused was driving the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner that speed factor and others factors were not
specifically mentioned by the witnesses has no bearing in the
present facts of the case. However, this Court deems it
appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to three
months.
10. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed
reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial
Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court to three months.
The trial Court shall cause appearance of the accused and
send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of
sentence imposed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 01.07.2024
dv
