Syed Tahsin, Medak District. vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2368 Tel

Telangana High Court

Syed Tahsin, Medak District. vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 24 June, 2024

                               1




     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
      CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1445 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner

aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.83 of

2009, on the file of Special Judge for trial of Offences under

SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, confirming the judgment dated

28.10.2009 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate at

Zaheerabad, Medak District in C.C.No.226 of 2006.

2. Heard Sri K.Lakshmaiah, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioner is that on

04.06.2006, while he was returning to village in an Auto along

with some others, the offending vehicle, which is a lorry came

in the opposite direction in a high speed and dashed against

the Auto. On account of impact of the lorry, Auto was damaged

and the Auto Driver received grievous injuries. The injured

Driver Prabhakar was taken to the hospital, however, he died

while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

4. The criminal complaint/Ex.P.1 was filed by P.W.1 who

was passenger in the Auto driven by the deceased. According

to his evidence, the lorry Driver was driving the lorry in a rash

and negligent manner resulting in the accident.

5. Learned Magistrate having considered the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 8 and also marking Exs.P.1 to P.8 on behalf of the

prosecution found that the evidence of P.W.1 is convincing

along with other evidence that it was accused who had driven

the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing accident

and consequent death of the Driver of the Auto.

6. The conviction was questioned before the learned

Sessions Judge who confirmed the conviction.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit

that the lorry Driver/accused is a stranger to P.W.1 and if at all

he was sitting in the Auto and received injuries on account of

the accident, it is highly improbable for him to identify the lorry

Driver. The other two witnesses who are P.W.2 and P.W.5 did

not identify the accused and their evidence is hearsay.

7. P.W.1 was admittedly present in the Auto which was

involved in the accident. Only for the reason of P.W.2 and

P.W.5 stating that they came to know about the accident and

their evidence is hearsay that does not in any manner effect the

convincing evidence of P.W.1.

8. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the

Courts below regarding rash and negligent act of the accused

driving the lorry resulting in the accident. Accordingly,

conviction is confirmed. However, keeping in view that the

accident happened on 04.06.2006 and nearly 18 years have

passed by, further, there are no cases of similar kind against

the accused, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the

sentence of imprisonment to six months.

9. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed. 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: 24.06.2024 dv