Telangana High Court
Munigala Bhaskar, Warangal District vs State Of A.P.,Rep.By P.P.,High Court, ... on 9 September, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1614 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the
petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated
01.07.2010 in Crl.A.No.8 of 2009, on the file of Special
Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases-cum-VII Additional Sessions
Judge, at Warangal, confirming the judgment dated
12.09.2008 passed by the IV Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate.
2. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under
Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo
one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
and Rs.500/-respectively.
3. Continuously, there is no representation on behalf of
the petitioner. Even, today, there is no representation for the
petitioner, though the matter is posted under the caption 'for
dismissal'. I have gone through the record with the
assistance of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State.
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that revision
petitioner was driving an Auto in which the deceased and two
others who are P.Ws.2 and 3 were travelling. The Auto was
driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the
petitioner losing control over the vehicle and Auto turned
turtle. Deceased fell on the road and the Auto fell on him
resulting in his instantaneous death.
5. The complaint was filed by P.W.1 and on the basis of
the said complaint, Police investigated the case and filed
charge sheet for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337
of IPC, for causing death of one Suresh and injuring P.Ws.2
and 3. Learned trial Judge found that the evidence of P.Ws.2
and 3 who were sitting in the Auto is believable. They have
specifically identified the Driver of the Auto in the Court.
Mainly two grounds were raised in the Court below. Firstly,
identity of the accused was doubtful and secondly,
prosecution failed to prove that the Auto was driven in a rash
and negligent manner.
6. Both the Courts below held that both P.Ws.2 and 3 who
were injured have specifically identified the accused as Driver
of the Auto and secondly, the manner in which the accident
had taken place in itself would show that the vehicle was
driven in a rash and negligent manner. The Auto was driven
in uncontrollable speed resulting in the Auto turning turtle.
7. It is not the case that there was any obstruction on the
road or anything that happened for losing control of the
vehicle. In the absence of any such explanation, there are no
grounds to interfere with the findings of the Court below.
Accordingly, the conviction is confirmed. However, the
sentence of imprisonment under Section 304-A of IPC is
reduced to three months and the conviction under Section
337 of IPC remains unaltered.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly
allowed. The trial Court shall cause appearance of the
petitioner and send him to prison to serve out remaining part
of the sentence imposed. Miscellaneous applications
pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 09.09.2024
dv
