Kethepally Narayana, v. The State Of A.P.,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2087 OF 2006 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/appellant/accused under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment, dated 18.7.2006, in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2006 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda whereunder and whereby, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment, dated 6.1.2006, in C.C.No.69 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The complainant - S. Venugopal is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-7-U-4626 and L.W.2 - Kilaru Giribabu is the support local driver to the complainant.
On 12.12.2001, at early hours, the complainant and L.W.2 started from Torruru Village to Perambavooru of Kerala State with cattle load and at 8:30 hours, they reached Kistapuram Village. The complainant stopped his lorry in front of V.T.Chowdary Hotel at road side for having tea. In the meantime, the accused, who is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-9-V-7874, drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the parked lorry of the complainant from its back side. Later, the accused lost control over the lorry and steered his lorry towards right side and it ran into road side pit and was damaged due to which, the accused and cleaner - Satyanarayana sustained severe injuries.
Immediately, the complainant and L.W.1 were shifted and got admitted in the Government Area Hospital, Miryalaguda for medical treatment. While undergoing treatment, the cleaner succumbed to injuries at 10:00 hours. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased, issued detailed post mortem examination report with opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries. L.W.12 - G.P.N.Prasad, M.V.I., Miryalaguda inspected the crime lorry and issued accident report stating that the accident was not occurred due to the mechanical defect of the vehicle. Based on the report of the complainant, the case was registered in Crime No.91 of 2001 under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C.
3. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. After appearance of the accused, he was charged under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. for which, he pleaded not guilty. So, the accused was placed for trial.
4. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. On behalf of the accused, none was examined and no documents were got marked.
5. After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, and found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. and accordingly, acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the aforementioned appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge confirming the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has not committed any error. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner filed this Revision Case.
6. Heard and perused the material available on record.
7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and from the material available on record, both the Courts below have rightly
come to the conclusion that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted him as stated supra. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to a poor family and he has wife and children and that he is the sole breadwinner of his family, and hence, prayed to reduce the sentence of imprisonment.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment. 10.
In the result, the conviction imposed against the petitioner/appellant/accused in t h e judgment, dated 18.7.2006, in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2006 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. is confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court, for the said offence is reduced to the period which the accused has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) on or before 14.10.2016.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 4.8.2016 AMD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2087 OF 2006 Date: 4.8.2016
AMD