Telangana High Court
Eshaboina Dilip Kumar vs The State Of Ap., on 22 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.62 of 2013
ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 17.01.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.73 of
2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge,
Nalgonda, Suryapet (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming
the judgment dated 05.05.2012 in C.C.No.335 of 2010 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy,
(for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused
as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State and perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on
15.10.2009, at about 09:00 A.M., when the deceased viz.,
Rukkamma went to bazaar from the house, while she was walking
on the cement road in front of the house of LW.5, the accused
being the driver of Mahendra Tractor bearing temporary
registration No.AP-24-AL-TR-6422, drove it in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased, due
to which, she fell down on the cement road and the front wheel
and big wheel of the Tractor ran over her. As a result, the
deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries to her head, shoulder
and died on the spot. Basing on the complaint lodged by LW.1,
who is the younger brother of the deceased, a case in Crime
No.127 of 2009 was registered against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short,
"I.P.C.")
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to
10 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On behalf of the defence,
DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the trial Court vide judgment cited supra found accused
guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C.
Petitioner/accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for period of two years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-. In default, the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for six (6) months.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred
Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2012 before the appellate Court. The
learned appellate Court after examining the material facts before
it and upon considering the trial court judgement in C.C.No.335
of 2010 has dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the
judgment passed by the trial Court. 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, he 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
petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused did not place anything before this Court,
which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, with regard to the
sentence, the offence took place long back in the year 2009 and
almost 15 years have been lapsed and during this period, the
petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In these
circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to set
off the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the
petitioner/accused and to enhance the fine amount to
Rs.50,000/-.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
however, the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, out of
which, Rs.45,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner/accused to the
legal heirs of deceased, within a period of two (2) months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order, else in default he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months.
11. Except the above modification, no further interference of
this Court is warranted with respect to the order passed by the
trial Court, as confirmed by the learned appellate Court.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Dated: 22.03.2024
mnv
