Telangana High Court
T.Sayi Reddy vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp on 13 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2426 of 2012
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed seeking to call
for the records and set aside the order of the learned III
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in
Crl.A.No.382 of 2010, dated 22.11.2012 confirming the order of
the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad in C.C.No.488 of 2009, dated 08.10.2010.
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. 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 Pradesh 1", wherein it was
categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any
(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720
appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the
merits.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the Sub Inspector of
Police, Panjagutta police station on completion of the
investigation in crime no. 509 of 2009 filed charge sheet before
the trial Court alleging that at 08.00 PM on 14.05.2009 near R.S
brother's bus stop, Ammerpet one Devendar was waiting to
enter into a bus and at that time an APSRTC bus bearing
No.AP 28 Z 825 Metro Express driven by the accused in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed him and caused serious injuries
to him. On that M.Raju, who is related to victim gave
complaint to the police and FIR was registered. After
completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the
petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section
304-A of IPC and he was tried for the aforesaid offences.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to
9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.
5. 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 and
sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of Six (06) months. Aggrieved by the same, the accused
preferred Crl.A.No.382 of 2010 before the Court of the learned
III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By its
judgment dated 22.11.2012 the appellate Court confirmed the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
Challenging the same the present revision is filed.
6. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State and perused the record.
7. 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 shown me anything, 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 2009 and
almost 15 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.
8. 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 simple
imprisonment for a period of six 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: 16.02.2024
mmr/gvl
