Telangana High Court
Kashinath, Nizamabad. vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 14 June, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.968 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner
aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.11.2008 in C.C.No.264 of
2006, on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for
Trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nizamabad, modified
by the order dated 23.04.2010 in Crl.A.No.91 of 2008, on the
file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
learned Additional 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
and 6 months of imprisonment under Section 338 of IPC. The
said conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court.
Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court, the present
Revision is filed.
4. The facts of the case are that on 10.01.2004, the revision
petitioner/accused, driving the lorry in a rash and negligent
manner hit the pedestrians who are examined as P.W.3 and her
child while crossing the road at Dichpally Railway Station. On
account of the impact, the minor child of P.W.2 died and P.W.2
received grievous injuries.
5. For the reason of causing accident, the Police had
investigated the case and filed charge sheet under Sections
304-A and 338 of IPC. On consideration of the prosecution
evidence, learned trial Judge found that revision petitioner had
driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner causing
instantaneous death of child of P.W.2 and also P.W.2 received
grievous injuries.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner would submit that P.W.2 was injured at the scene
and the driver is stranger to her and her identifying him for the
first time in the Court cannot be believed. For the reason of
Police failing to conduct test identification parade during the
course of investigation, the identity for the first time before the
Court below cannot be believed.
7. The case of P.W.2 is that while she was crossing the road
along with her minor child, a lorry came at a high speed and
caused the accident. P.W.1 is also an eye-witness to the said
incident. Even according to him, while he was standing at a
distance of 30 yards from the place of accident, he observed
that the accused has caused accident and ran from the scene.
In view of identification of P.Ws.1 and 2, their narration of
incident cannot be disbelieved. Accordingly, the conviction
recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions
Court cannot be interfered with. However, keeping in view that
the accused was not involved in any other accidents which the
Public Prosecutor does not dispute, this Court deems it
appropriate to reduce the sentence of 6 months imprisonment
as confirmed by the Sessions Court for a period of 3 months.
8. Accordingly, the Revision is partly allowed reducing the
sentence of 6 months imprisonment to 3 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: 14.06.2024
dv
