Bathula Venkateshwarlu , Venkatesham, vs State Of A.P., Rep By P.P.,
2024 Latest Caselaw 2502 Tel

Telangana High Court

Bathula Venkateshwarlu , Venkatesham, vs State Of A.P., Rep By P.P., on 3 July, 2024

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1975 OF 2009

ORDER:

The revision petitioner/accused was convicted by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet, in CC.No.650 of 2005, vide

Judgement dated 19.05.2008, for the offence under Section 304-A of

the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same the accused preferred appeal in

Crl.A.No.130 of 2008 before the II Additional Sessions Judge,

Nalgonda at Suryapet, vide Judgment dated 15.09.2009, while

dismissing the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the

trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.08.2005, the

deceased, PWs.2 and 3 were in the Auto which was driven by PW7.

When they reached near Suryapet bus stand, the lorry driver hit the

Auto at high speed resulting in the deceased death instantaneously

and PWs.2 and 3 receiving injuries.

4. The Court below having examined injured witnesses PWs.2 to 5

and driver of the Auto PW7, found that PWs.2 to 5 and 7 have

identified the lorry driver as the person driving the lorry when the

accident had taken place. In the Court below, the identification of

accused went unchallenged.

5. Conviction was recorded by the trial Court and the said

conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court when the accused

preferred appeal before the Sessions Court.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would

submit that the deceased died on account of Auto turning turtle and

not on account of the impact. The eye-witnesses PWs.2 to 5 and PW7

have clearly stated that while they were proceeding in Auto near new

bus stand, Suryapet, the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent

manner and collided with the Auto. The result of the impact was the

Auto turned turtle and PWs.2 and 3 received injuries and were taken

to the hospital.

7. I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the Court below

regarding complicity of the accused. There are no grounds to

interfere with the finding of guilt. However keeping in view that there

are no other cases against revision petitioner and the case is of the

year 2005, the sentence of imprisonment of two years is reduced to

six months.

8. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing

the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner from two

years to six months. The Trial Court is directed to cause appearance

of the revision petitioner/Accused and send him to prison to serve

out the remaining part of the sentence.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 03.07.2024 tk