Telangana High Court
A. Devendar, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 13 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2584 of 2012
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed seeking to set
aside the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.190 of 2011, dated 20.12.2012
confirming the order of the learned VII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.708 of 2008,
dated 30.03.2011.
2. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner
on 21.02.2024 and 06.03.2024. Even today also there is no
representation on behalf of the petitioner/accused. Therefore,
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 Pradesh1", wherein
it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss
(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720
any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining
the merits.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2008 at 10.00
am, the deceased boy K.Karthik was standing on the right side
of the road eating ice cream at Saleem nagar. In the
meanwhile, the driver of the crime vehicle, a goods trolly
bearing No.AP 29 U 2104 had driven it in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the boy. The vehicle ran over the
boy, due to which he received injuries and died on the spot.
They caught hold of the driver of the goods vehicle and came
to know his name. Pws.1 to 6 who were taking tea in front of
the hotel of Pw.2 have witnessed the incident. Pw.1 lodged a
complaint, Ex.P-1 and Pw.11, Sub Inspector of Police registered
a case and issued FIR, Ex.P-5 and handed over further
investigation to Pw.10.
4. During the course of investigation, Pw.10 examined the
witnesses and visited the scene of offence and drawn rough
sketch of the scene of offence. He visited the hospital and held
inquest over the dead body of Karthik in the presence of Pws.7
and 9 under Ex.P-2 and sent the dead body for post-mortem
examination. Pw.9, the medical officer conducted post-mortem
examination over the dead body and issued Ex.P-4/PME
report. Pw.8, motor vehicle inspector inspected the vehicle and
issued Ex.P-3. The owner of the vehicle produced the accused
before the police and accused surrendered to the police. After
completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed
charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section
304-A of IPC.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to
11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.
6. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC sentenced
him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Six (06)
year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. Aggrieved by
the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.190 of 2011 before
the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad. By its judgment dated 20.12.2012, the appellate
Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the
trial Court. Challenging the same the present revision is filed.
7. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State and perused the record.
8. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below
with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has also
not placed anything before this Court, which would discredit
the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as
conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it
may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2008
and almost 16 years have passed and during this period the
revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he
did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is
expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the
period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused,
while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court against
him.
9. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the
conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed
by the appellate Court. However, the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for a period of Six (06) months for the offence
under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to the period already
undergone by the revision petitioner/accused.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Dated: 13.03.2024
mmr/gvl
