Telangana High Court
Manda Kumaraswamy, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 10 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.742 OF 2008
ORDER:
The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class for PCR Cases at Warangal, in
C.C.No.994 of 2001, for the offence punishable under Section 304-
A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed
Crl.A.No.104/2005 before the Sessions Judge, Warangal and the
learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal confirmed the
conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Aggrieved by same, the
revision petitioner is before this Court.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2000,
the accused who is the driver of the offending vehicle drove in a
rash and negligent manner resulting in the vehicle turning turtle
and causing instantaneous death of two passengers and also
injuries to nine others. The injured were examined as
PWs.1 to 9.
4. The learned Magistrate having examined PWs.1 to 14 out of
whom PWs.1 to 9 were injured and marking Exs.P1 to P32 which
are X-ray reports and Wound certificates of injured, found that the
revision petitioner was responsible for causing the accident and
for the deaths of the passengers in the vehicle.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that the revision has to be allowed on the following
grounds;
i) The speed at which the vehicle was going was not
stated by any of the witnesses.
ii) It is not the case that the driver was in drunken
condition.
iii) It is not known whether there was any hindrance
while driving on account of the uneven road when
the accident had taken place.
iv) The said act of accident which was caused is not
intentional.
v) PWs.1 to 9 were all going to the market and it is
highly probable that all of them had instigated the
accused to drive the vehicle in a faster manner to
reach the destination and due to faster driving it
may have resulted in accident.
6. On the basis of above arguments, the learned counsel seeks
intervention of this Court in reversing the Judgment of the Courts
below.
7. The said grounds are not tenable as they are assumptive and
imaginative. It is not the case that the accused was not the driver
of the vehicle. The driving is not disputed. It is not the case that
there was any hindrance or any such event that occurred on
account of which the accident had taken place.
8. As seen from the evidence, PWs.1 to 9 were injured while
travelling in the said vehicle. The manner in which the accident
had taken place clearly indicates that the driver was at fault in
driving the vehicle in such a manner resulting in the vehicle
turning turtle and causing the death of two persons and injuries
to 9 others. The incident speaks for itself and the grounds which
are agitated on behalf of revision petitioner cannot form basis to
reverse the concurrent findings of the Court below.
9. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year
2000 and nearly 24 years have passed by, further, there are no
other cases pending against the revision petitioner, which fact is
not disputed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this
Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment to the period of three months.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed
reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner to
six months. The trial Court shall cause appearance of the
accused/revision petitioner 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: 10.06.2024
tk
