Achi Srinu v. The State Of A.P.
Bail Slip:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 4-4-2013 in Crl.MP No. 943/13 in Crl.RC No. 603 ot 2013 [ 32es ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR -.'
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL cRIMINAL REVIS|ON CASE NO: 603 OF 2013 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 against the Judgrnent dated 07.12.2012, made in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar, preferred against the Judgment dated 02.03.2012, made in in CC.No.481 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Mahabubnagar. Between:
Achi Srinu, S/o. Kotaiah ...REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of A.P., Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of A.P. through P.S. NawabPet ... RESPON DE NT/COM PLAINAN T Counset for the Petitioner: SRl. L. HARISH Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. VIZARATH ALl, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI ]USTICE E' V' VENUGOPAL R N LRE I o o F2
ORDER
t The Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment , dated 07.12.2012 in Crl'A'No'45 of 2Ol2 on the file of learned Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar (for short' "the appellate Court") in confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the judgment dated 02.03.2012 in C.C'No'481 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubnagar (for short, "the trial Court").
2.
Heard Sri L'Harish, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State' Perused the record' case are that the Kalal Narsimulu 3.
Brief facts of the is resident of Kuchur Village' On Goud/ de-facto complainant when the deceased was Proceeding 29.05.2009 at 07'15 hours'
on his motorcYcle the revision towards Rudraram Village R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP22W 6614 petitioner/accused drove the manner and dashed the with high sPeed in a rash and negligent Due to which he sustained severe injuries and he died moto rcycle.
while undergoing treatment. Based on the said facts the present crime is registered.
4.
The trial Courl vide judgment cited supra found the petitioner/accused as not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-4 of IPC and acquitted him. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
5.
The appellate Court vrUe judgment cited supra allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment passed by the trial Court. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence under Section 304-4 IPC. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate Court upon re-appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective, passed the judgment. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
7.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellate Court after careful consideration of the material placed on record rightly passed the impugned judgment. Therefore, the interference of this Court is unwarranted and therefore he seeks to dismiss the revision.
B.
On behalf of prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs' 1 i to 11 and got marked Exs.Pl to P7. On behalf of the defence, none l l were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the material, the trlal court observed that PW.1 is the deceased. PWs.2and3arewitnesses,whoclaimedtohaveseentheaccident who attributed the accident to the rash and negligence of the accused. PW.2 is the relative of the deceased. PW.3 is another eye witness of the incident and supported the prosecution' PWs'4 to 7 are none of the witnesses. PW.5 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama. PW.6 is the panch witness for inquest proceedings, who is the Asst. Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad' PW'7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. PW.
B is the Sub-Inspector of Police' PW'9 is the PME Report. PW.1O is Head Constable, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW.11 is the scene of offence panchanama. The trial Court observed that when both vehicles which are involved in the accident are not produced before the Court, it is for the prosecution to prove that the rider of the motor bike was caused the accident.
the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Therefore, the trial Court rendered the judgment cited supra and acquitted the accused. 9.
The appellate Court observed that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is cogent and consistent with regard to material particulars. Considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 (PWs.2 and 3), the appellate Court found that on 29.05.2009, the accused drove the RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the Kalal Narsimulu Goud. Due to which, Kalal Narsimulu Goud sustained severe injuries and while undergoing treatment he died. Thus, there was a direct nexus of the death of the deceased with the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, the appellate Court found that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused.
10. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 04.04.2013 suspended the sentence alone and enlarged the petitioner on bail on condition of his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
11. In the present case on hand, the appellate Court found that the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and convicted him under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.,
which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr 'P 'C' grounds to
12. There are no grounds and much less valid Court and interferewiththewellconsideredjudgmentofappellate t + li accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed'
13. 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 the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view bY to the Period of reducing the sentence imposed on the petitioner imprisonment already undergone by him'
74. However, the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the credit of the C'C'No'481 of 2009 in the trial Court within a period of six months from today' upon proper proof and acknowledgement. On such deposit' the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to withdraw the same under proper proof and acknowledgement without furnishing any security' the judgment dated O-/ '72'2012 in
15. In default, the file of learned Sessions Judge at Crl.A.No.45 of 2012 on Mahabubnagar stands good in all respects'
15. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
Misceflaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGIS R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar The Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Mahabubnagar. The Station House Officer, Nawabpet, Mahaboobnagar District Two CCs to thePublic Prosecutor, High Court for thqState of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI One CC to SRl. L HARISH Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies 3.
4.
5.
6.
BRA/H
HIGH COURT DATED: 2610212024 IYIE S tal ( ri e J)) 7.
0 6 JUil ?02t t e A) s €- o ,i
ORDER
It CRLRC.No.603 of 2013 DISMTSSING THE CRL.R.C c^g's @ x,€