Telangana High Court
Byagari Narsimha, R.R.Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep. Pp., Hyd., on 20 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.983 OF 2013
O R D E R:
The Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment
dated 14.05.2013 passed in Crl.A.No.11 of 2012 on the file of
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge at Vikarabad, Ranga
Reddy District (for short, "appellate Court") in confirming the
conviction and sentence passed in the judgment dated 16.02.2012 in
C.C.No.119 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District (for short, "trial Court").
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.02.2009 at
10:00 A.M, the deceased along with her friends went to Chilkur
Balaji temple and after darshan, took another Auto bearing No.AP-
28Y-7797 at Himayatnagar Cross Roads to proceed towards
Chevella. In the meantime, when the auto reached to malkapur
village at 2:30 P.M, the accused drove the Auto in a rash and
negligent manner with a high speed, due to which the Auto turned
turtle. As a result, the inmates of the Auto sustained simple injuries
and the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries. While
undergoing treatment at Care Hospital on the same day, she died.
Basing on the complaint, a case in Crime No.48 of 2009 was
registered against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.")
3. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the trial Court vide judgment cited supra found petitioner
guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of
I.P.C and convicted him under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one
year for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default, he was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month. He was directed to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC, in default,
he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.02.2012 in
C.C.No.119 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, the petitioner preferring the
Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2012 before the appellate Court. The
learned judge, appellate Court after examining the material facts
before it and upon considering the judgment passed by the trial
Court in C.C.No.119 of 2009, allowed the Criminal Appeal setting
aside the sentence and conviction awarded by the trial Court against
the accused for the offence under Section 337 of IPC. But confirmed
the sentence with respect to offence under Section 304-A IPC. The
trial Court was directed to return the fine amount of Rs.500/- paid
by the appellant for the offence under Section 337 of IPC.
Challenging the conviction and sentence for the offence under
Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner/accused preferred the present
revision.
5. Heard Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Mr. K. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record
in proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment.
Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the same and contended that the appellate Court, upon
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record
in right perspective, passed the impugned judgment and
interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to
dismiss the Revision.
8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined
PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to 12. In defence, there is no
evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner/accused, either oral or
documentary.
9. As per the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, the trial Court
observed that due to rash and negligent driving of the accused the
accident had occurred. PW.8, in her evidence of conducting of P.M.E
stated that the deceased died due to road accident. Therefore, the
prosecution has proved the death of the deceased occurred due to
road accident. As per the evidence of PWs.2 and 5 who are the eye
witnesses, identification of accused was found to be undisputed.
Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the petitioner/accused
drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death
of Priyanka. The appellate Court modifying the judgment passed by
the trial Court and rendered the judgment cited supra. 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, almost fifteen years have
been lapsed and he is roaming around the Courts all these years. In
these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to
reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner
for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
However, having regard to the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and upon considering the fact that the petitioner
suffered mental agony by roaming around trial Court as well as
appellate Court, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view by
reducing sentence imposed on the petitioner to the period of
imprisonment already undergone by him.
11. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the
Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 20.03.2024
dsu
