Maligireddy Chenna Reddy v. The State Of A.P.

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated. 28-07-201 1 in CRLRC.IVP. NO: 2304 OF 2011 in Crl.R.C No.1566 of 201'1 [ 32ee l

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REV]SION CASE NO: 1566 OF 2011 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC to set aside the Judgment dated 27.07.201 1 made in Crl.A No. 83 of 2009 on the file of the court of the ll Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam and thereby allow the revision by acquitting the revision petitioner in the interest of justice. Between:

Maligireddy Chenna Reddy, S/o Konda Reddy, Driver of RTC Bus No. AP 112 895 Staff No.110516, Miryalaguda Depot, Nalgonda Dist. Rl/o Pangavanikunta, Anumula Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. ...PETITIONERYACCUSED AND The state of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VIZARATH ALl, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1566l20tL ORDER:

The present criminal revision case is filed against the Judgment in Crl.A.No.83 of 2009, dated 27.O7.2011 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Khammam.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner/ accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 13 .02.2006 the deceased Gudipati Ravi and LW.4 Gantala Veerabrahma Chan' came to Gurralapadu and attended work at the house of Dumpala Pedda Pullaiah and at about 4 p.m. the deceased was returning on his Hero Punch Motor Cycle No. AP,5-AG-4O24 and when he reached near the house of Chilkuri Nagachary on Khammam-Kodad R & B Road, mean time the accused who is the driver of R.T.C. Bus No.AP 11-2-895 while proceeding to Miryalagudem drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the deceased Hero

rr,.,!:j Z Punch, resulting which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe injury and the injured was shifter to Cure Hospital Khammam for treatment. The deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet which was taken on file as C.C.No.l22 of 2006. 4.

On appearance of accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to him' The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The accusation under Section 304-A of IPC was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.Pl to P8 6.

Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and after appreciating the oral ald documentarSr evidence on record, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam (for short the trial Court') took a lenient view against the accused. Hence the accused is convicted under Section 255 (21 Cr.P.C. and

-) sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,OOO/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three (03) months. The remand period already undergone is set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C 7.

Aggrieved by which, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Khammam, (for short 'appellate Court') the Iearned appellate Court after considering the facts and circumstances and upon perusing the Judgment 1n C.C.No.l22 of 2006, dated 22.07.2OO9 has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

8.

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. Perused the record 9 .

There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilty of the revision petitioner/ accused and \ the learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not place anything before this Court, which would discredit the \ evidence. Therefore, no interference was warranted as far as

X conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2006 and almost 17 years have passed ald during this period the revision petitioner must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner while maintaining the line imposed by the trial Court.

10. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sections 304-A I.P.C., is reduced to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/ accused while maintaining the sentence of Iine imposed by the trial Court against the petitioner/ appellant/ accused.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUW REGISTRAR \ /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of l.Class' at Khammam i. il; ii nJoitionat Sessions Judge (FTC)'-Kha.mmam

3. Two ccs to the p'orc'iiotll'iollirig('co"t tot the state of relangana at Hvderabad [OUT]

4. 6i'""#i;Anl. i eHeNu PRASAD Adv6cate IoPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies _.6

t HIGH COURT DATED:2010912023 r /{ _'-F ..'..1.."

:

?1 ti"i ':t.titr : i \,.

,:'

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1566 of 2011 DISMISSING THE CRLRC @*o q-9