Telangana High Court
Shaik Rafeeq, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 26 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1544 OF 2010
ORDER:
The revision petitioner/accused was convicted by the
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, in
C.C.No.1050 of 2007, vide Judgment dated 11.01.2010, for the
offence punishable under Sections 338 of the Indian Penal Code and
section 146 r/w.196 of the M.V.Act and sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC; and further
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section
146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act. Aggrieved by the same, the revision
petitioner filed Crl.A.No.25/2010 before the Sessions Judge,
Karimnagar, and the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the
appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial
Court. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
3. The allegation against the appellant is that while PWs.2 and 3
were standing on the road side on their motorcycle at Shamshabad
bus stand, the accused was driving the Indica Car, went in the
opposite direction in high speed and dashed against the motorcycle.
The impact was severe, left leg of PW2 was crushed. PW3 also
received fracture injury on his left foot. PWs.2 and 3 are injured and
PWs.4 and 5 are eye witnesses to the accident. All four of them were
waiting in the bus-stand and they have identified appellant as driver
of the Indica Car.
4. The learned Magistrate having examined PWs.1 to 9 of whom
PWs.2 and 3 are injured, found that it was the accused who was
driving the Indica car and dashed against the motorcycle of PW3
causing grievous injuries and fractures to both PWs.2 and 3 on their
legs.
5. The conviction was questioned before the Sessions Court. The
learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence of identity of the
accused by PWs.2 to 5 was convincing and confirmed the conviction.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that conviction was recorded without there being any
admissible evidence. There were material contradictions in between
the evidences of PWs.2 and 3 and other two witnesses PWs.4 and 5
also. However, without considering the said contradictions,
conviction was recorded.
7. Having gone through the evidence of PWs.2 and 3-injured and
also the other two eye witnesses PWs.4 and 5, who stated in their
evidence that the accused being the driver of the Indica vehicle
driven in rash and negligent manner and consequently caused the
accident. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.2
to 5. Minor discrepancies in the cross-examinations of witnesses, is
of no avail to the accused, when they do not in any manner effect the
version of the witnesses. Accordingly, the conviction is confirmed.
8. However, the fine component is increased to Rs.25,000/- and
the sentence of imprisonment of the accused is reduced to the period
already undergone. The fine amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be
deposited before the Court by the accused, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which,
the accused has to undergo default sentence of three months
imprisonment.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 26.06.2024
tk
