Telangana High Court
Boina Kishan, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 March, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1211 OF 2011
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 03.06.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5 of
2011 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge,
Warangal (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the
judgment dated 09.12.2010 in C.C.No.585 of 2009 on the file of
learned VII Additional First Class Magistrate, Warangal (for short,
"the trial Court").
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and
perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2009 at about
06:00 hours, the deceased along with LWs.2 and 3 went to
Enumamula Market by Tractor which was loaded with cotton and
after selling cotton in the market, they reached Hanamkonda
Petrol Pump and boarded the auto bearing No.AP-36-W6987 of
the accused and while proceeding to their village Nerella, on the
way at the outskirts of Pembarthy village near Ekashila High
School, the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner at high speed, due to which the accused lost his control
over the auto and as a result, the accused, LWs2 and 3 sustained
severe injuries and the deceased succumbed to injuries on
16.11.2009 while undergoing treatment. Basing on the
complaint, a case in Crime No.199 of 2009 was registered against
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A,
338 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.") and
Section 196 of the M.V. Act.
4. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined
PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P9.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the trial Court vide judgment cited supra, found the
accused guilty and convicted him for the offences under Sections
304-A, 338, 337 of I.P.C and Section 181 of M.V. Act.
Petitioner/accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304-A of
IPC, for the offence under Section 338 of IPC accused shall
undergo six months, for the offence under Section 337 of IPC
accused shall undergo six months and Rs.500/- fine for the
offence under Section 181 of M.V. Act. In default of pay the fine
amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. All
the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period
undergone by the accused, if any, shall be set off.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.12.2010, the
petitioner/appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2011
before the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court vide
judgment supra, after examining the material facts and upon
considering the trial Court judgment in C.C.No.585 of 2009
dismissed the criminal appeal, while modifying the sentence of
imprisonment imposed against the petitioner from one year to six
months. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial
Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the
evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed
their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the
impugned judgment.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same and
contended that both the Courts, upon appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record in right perspective,
passed their respective judgments and the interference of this
Court is unwarranted. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision.
9. There are concurrent findings of both the trial Court as well
as the appellate Court with regard to guilt of the revision
petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/accused did not place anything before this Court,
which would discredit the evidence on record. 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 long back i.e., in the year 2009 and almost fifteen
years have been lapsed 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 for the offences under
Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. from six months to one
month each.
10. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the
conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by
the appellate Court. However, the sentence imposed by the trial
Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year
for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, which is
reduced to six months by the appellate Court, is reduced to one
month; for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, the accused
shall undergo six months imprisonment is reduced to one month;
and for the offence under Section 337 of IPC, three months
imprisonment, is reduced to one month. All the sentences shall
run concurrently. The remand period already undergone by the
accused, if any, shall be set-off against the terms of the sentence
imposed to him under Section 428(1) of Cr.P.C.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 15.03.2024
mnv
