Telangana High Court
B.Thriupathaiah, R.R.Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp. Hyd., on 12 June, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1287 OF 2014
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 17.06.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.317 of 2014
on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad
(for short, "the appellate Court") in modifying the judgment dated
03.04.2014 in C.C.No.409 of 2013 on the file of the learned VIII
Special Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard
Mr.Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. Since, there was no representation on behalf of the
petitioner, 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.
(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.06.2013, while
PW1/de facto complainant was driving her Kinetic Honda near
Darulshifa cross roads, at about 18:30 hours, an APSRTC bus
bearing No.AP-28Z-4484 came in a rash and negligent manner,
overtook the vehicle of the complainant from her left side and
took a right turn in front of her vehicle due to which, she fell
down on the road and the fingers of her left leg got crushed under
the front right tyre of the said bus and she sustained fractured
injury. Later, she was shifted to Darulshifa Hospital for
treatment. Basing on the said facts, a case was registered in
Crime No.116 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section
337 of I.P.C.
5. The trial Court vide judgment dated 03.04.2014 in
C.C.No.409 of 2013 convicted the petitioner/accused and
sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and
directed him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for two weeks. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred an appeal.
6. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment, modified the
sentence imposed against the petitioner and directed him to
suffer simple imprisonment for two months by leaving the fine
intact. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present
Revision.
7. As per the grounds raised in the Revision, the petitioner
submitted 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 offence. Therefore, the petitioner 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 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 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the defense
none were examined and no document was marked. PW1
re-iterated the averments made in the complaint. PW2, who is the
Conductor of the subject bus as on the date of accident, clearly
stated that the accident occurred at the cross-roads of Darulshifa
and that he saw one Kinetic Honda under the right front tyre of
the bus. Hence, there is no doubt with regard to the identity of
the accused. PW4, who is a pedestrian clearly deposed that while,
he was going to his house, he found one lady who fell down at
5:30 P.M. and that himself and some others had taken the lady to
Hospital for treatment. Basing on the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4,
it can be said that the accident had occurred and PW1 sustained
grievous injuries in the said accident. PW6 is the Sub-Inspector
of Police who deposed that on 19.06.2013, at about 20:50 hours,
a case in Crime No.116 of 2013 was registered against the
accused for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. The petitioner
contended that the number of the Kinetic Honda is noted as AP-
29-AH-6909 in the charge sheet as well as in 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of PW1. Whereas, PW1 deposed that the number of her
vehicle is AP-29-GH-6906.
10. A perusal of Ex P1 shows that the number of the Kinetic
Honda is mentioned as AP-29-GH-6906. But during the cross-
examination, PW6, who is the investigating Officer clearly
admitted that due to oversight, the number of the two wheeler
was noted as AP-29-GH-6909 in the charge sheet as well as in
161 Cr.P.C. statements but the number is AP-29-GH-6906. The
trial Court, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on
record, stated that just by noting a wrong number, the entire
case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out and due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, PW1 lost her four
toes of her left foot in the accident. Therefore, basing on the
evidence of PWs.1 to 6 coupled with the circumstances, the trial
Court observed that, due to the rash and negligent driving of the
accused driver, the accident had occurred and PW1 lost her four
toes of her left foot and rendered the judgment dated 03.04.2014
in C.C.No.409 of 2013.
11. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the evidence
available on record found that it is not necessary for any rash
and negligent act to occur when the vehicle is going at high speed
and in the given circumstances, if the accused does not take
necessary precautions which are necessary to prevent any
mishap, it would amount to rash and negligent act falling within
the purview of Section 338 of I.P.C. However, the appellate Court
confirmed the findings of the trial Court but, on considering the
age of the accused, reduced the sentence imposed against the
accused to two months of simple imprisonment leaving the fine
intact.
12. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order
dated 23.06.2014 suspended the sentence imposed against the
petitioner, pending Revision and released him on bail, on
furnishing personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for
the like sum each of immovable property solvency to the
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
13. In the case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently
held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 338 of IPC, which finding, in my considered view,
does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case 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 ten long years have
elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court is inclined
to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed against
the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone
by him.
15. 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: 12.06.2024
ESP
