Telangana High Court
Kurapati Sriramulu, Nalgonda Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Thr Sho, Suryapet Town ... on 6 March, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2070 OF 2012
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the
judgment dated 17.10.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2012 on
the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, at
Suryapet (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the
judgment dated 08.12.2011 in C.C.No.803 of 2009 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Suryapet (for
short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. R. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner
appearing on-line and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent State. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.2009, the
petitioner/accused, who was the driver of the cement lorry
bearing No. AP 28 TA 1713 drove it at a high speed, in rash and
negligent manner and dashed the pedestrian namely Malla
Reddy, who was crossing the National High Way No.9 towards
AMR function hall from High-tech bus stand. Due to which, the
said Malla Reddy fell down on the road, sustained severe head
injury and while undergoing treatment, he died. Basing on the
said facts, the present crime is registered against the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal
Code (for short, "I.P.C.").
4. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra found the
petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 304A of
IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, he
was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen
(15) days. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
5. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra dismissed
the appeal, confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.
Assailing the same, the present Revision.
6. 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
concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the alleged offence.
Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that both
the Courts upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on
record rightly passed their respective judgments and the
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 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. On behalf of the defence,
none were examined but Ex D1 was marked. Upon careful
scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
found that PW1 is the relative of the deceased and he re-iterated
the averments in the complaint. PW2 is one of the eye witnesses
to the accident. It is the contention of prosecution that PWs.2
and 6 came to Suryapet along with the deceased to attend the
function.
9. PWs.3 and 4 categorically deposed that the deceased came
to Suryapet to attend a function and met with an accident that
occurred at Hi-Tech bus stand, Suryapet. Both of them
categorically stated that one lorry caused accident of the
deceased and while undergoing treatment the said Malla Reddy
died.
10. PWs.2 and 6, who are eye-witnesses to the accident
categorically stated that both of them came to Suryapet along
with the deceased Malla Reddy to attend a function on that date
of accident. While they were crossing the road, at Hi-Tech bus
stand, to go to function hall, the accused drove the lorry in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed the deceased Malla Reddy.
Both of them categorically identified the accused person stating
that he was the driver of the offending vehicle.
11. PW2 further stated that he saw the accused at the scene as
the offending vehicle was stopped for some time. PW6 also
deposed that after the accident, the offending vehicle was stopped
within the distance of 10 to 15 yards from the place of the
accident. He also categorically deposed that the accused was the
driver of the offending vehicle by the time of the accident.
12. PW8-Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of
the deceased categorically deposed that the cause of death of the
deceased was due to head injury.
13. PW6 also categorically deposed that the deceased sustained
injuries on his head and hands in the said accident. The evidence
of PW6 corroborated with the medical evidence in material terms.
14. PW7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who deposed that he
inspected the offending vehicle and found that there was no
damage over it. He further stated that the accident did not occur
due to mechanical defects of the said vehicle. Thus, the
prosecution observed that there were no mechanical defects over
the offending vehicle and the accident occurred due to negligence
of the accused. Admittedly there was no enmity between the
prosecution witnesses and the accused. Therefore, relying upon
the evidence of PWs.2 and 6, the prosecution established that the
deceased died in the accident caused by the accused while
driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
Therefore, the trial Court rendered the judgment cited supra.
15. The appellate Court upon re-appreciating the evidence
available on record in similar lines, dismissed the appeal
confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.
16. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order
dated 19.10.2012 suspended the sentence of imprisonment
imposed on the petitioner herein and ordered to release him on
bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- by him
with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial
Court. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.
17. In the present case on hand, both the Courts have
concurrently held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence
punishable under Section.304A of IPC, which finding, in my
considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
18. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered
mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before
the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as twelve long
years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court
in inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence
imposed against the petitioner from six months to one month of
simple imprisonment.
19. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case
in all other aspects, stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 06.03.2024
ESP
