Jula Koti 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: OSlO9t2O11, in CRLRC.Mp.No.26ia of 2011 in CRL RC.No. 1781ot 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOi 1781 OF 2011 Revision filed under Section 3971401 of CrpC against the judgment dated 25.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.90 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the ill Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, confirming the judgment dated 29.07.2010 in C.C.No.313 of 2008 on the file of the Judt. First Ctass Magistrate, Huzurabad, Karimnagar Dist.
Between:
1. JULA KOTI, S/o Sailu, R/o Pogullapalti Vittage, Kothaguda Mandat, Warangal Dist.
...PETIT]ONERYAPPELLANT/ACCUSED AND
1. THE STATE OF A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANT
'-7 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(cRLRCMP. NO: 2874 Ol 20111 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Cou( may be pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment made in the judgment dated 25.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.90 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the ttt Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, which was passed in confirming the conviction and sentence of the imprisonment in judgment dated 29.O7.2O1O in C.C.No.313 of 2008 on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Huzurabad, Karimnagar Dist., and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. A PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1781 OF 2O11 ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 25.08.2011 in CrI.A.No.9O of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated 29.O7.2010 in C.C.No.313 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Huzurabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2.
Heard Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State.
3.
The averments in the charge she.et were that LWl Perala Kanakaiah was the resident of Gandhinagar of Kothagudem Mandai. On 07.Ol .2001 at about 8:00 P.M. his brother Perala Sudharshan, sister-in-law Uma, sister Kandakatla Susheela, her grand daughter De','ulpalli Kamalkumar and Monika, Mallela Saraiah left for Godavarikhani in the jeep bearing No.AP-36-U4157 to bring his wife and child from Godavarikhani. The jeep was driven by thepetitioner herein, who is accused No.2. On the
same night he came to know that the jeep in which his brother and others were travelling dashed the stationed lorry bearing No.ABV 1899 in the rear side and met with an accident at the outskirts of Kothagattu Village. His brother and five others died on the spot and others were shifted to hospital' Basing on the said facts, the SI of police registered a case in Cr'No' I of 2O0 1 under Section 304-A and 337 of I.P.C4.
l,earned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no evidence on record to show that petitioner drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and therefore, the trial Court as well as appellate Court erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. Therefore, seeks to allow the Revision.
5.
l,earned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the appellate Court after careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record rightly passed the impugned judgment and hence, the interference from this Court is unwarranted- Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision. 6.
The trial Court, on behalf of respondent, examined PWs'1 to 25 and marked Exs.Pl to P31. On behalf of petitioner, none
.) were examined but Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence found that PWs.2 to 9, rvho were the circumstantial witnesses and relatives deposed the cause of the death of Dl to D6 was due to the accident. PWs. 15, 16 and 18 who were the inquest mediators deposed that inquest was conducted over the dead bodies of the deceased Dl to D6 vide Exs.P6 to pll. Even upon cross_ examination of the witnesses, no contradiction worth mentioning has been elicited in their evidence so as to disbelieve the evidence on the aspect of death of deceased Dl to D6. 7.
A perusal of Exs.P6 to Pl 1 and P16 (photographs) and their corresponding negatives along with Exs. p I 3 to I 5, Exs.P26 to P28 i.e., Post Mortem Examination report of D1 to D6 reveal that deceased D1 to D6 died due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury in road accident. Therefore, the prosecution successfully proved the death of deceased Dl to D6 beyond reasonable doubt.
8.
On coming to the cause of death of deceased D1 to D6, PWl 1 who is the passenger in the jeep and an eye witness to the accident categorically deposed that on 07.Ol.2OOl at 11:00 p.M. while proceeding to Godavarikhani and when the jeep reached
near Kothagattu the driver of jeep drove it at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed lorry on road, due to which, the deceased Dl to D5 died on the spot and D6 died while undergoing treatment at hospital. Pl 1 stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of accused No.2 and negligence of accused No.1, who stopped the lorry without taking any precautionary measures. Therefore, the ev'idence of PWl l remained unshaken and it corroborated with the evidence of PWs.2 to 9.
9.
The Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the lorry as well as the jeep and issued Ex Pl2 report and deposed that the accident occurred, not due to any mechanical defects, of the said vehicle. His evidence also supports the evidence of PWl1. PWs.l to 9 and these circumstances suggest that the lorry was not parked on the left side of the road and the jeep was being driven by petitioner at a high speed. Therefore, the trial Court observed that the prosecution successfully brought home the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
10. Therefore, the trial Court, vide judgment dated 29.O7.2OIO in C.C.No.313 of 2OO8 convicted the accused No.1 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three &
) months and also to pay a fine of Rs.4OO/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the ofrence under Section 304-,,{ of I.P.C. and further sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three days for offence under Section 337 of I.p.C.
1 1. Further, petitioner/ accused No.2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.50O/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 304_A of I.P.C. and further the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50O/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 337 of I.p.C.. Both the sentences were to run concurrently and the remand period if any, undergone by both the accused Nos.l and 2 persons was directed to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.p.C.
12. The appellate Court upon re-appreciating the evidence on record also observed that the death of six persons was caused due to the accident that occurre d on 07 .Ol .2O01 , due to the rash and negligent driving of petitioner/accused No.2 and found no inhrmities in the judgment passed by the trial Court.
.ffi'\ .'n \' \ .'
-..\^ Therefore, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court
13. As held by the trial Court and the appellate Court, the mode of accident and the identity of the petitioner are proved by the evidence of PWs.2 to 9 and 1 1. The rash and negligent driving of the petitioner is clinchingly proved by the evidence I PW2O-Motor Vehicle Inspector, who issued Ex.P. 12- MVI report and the cause of death of the deceased persons is being proved l by the evidence of PW2 l-Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased persons and issued Exs.Pl3 to 15 postmortem report and Exs.26 to 28.
14. This Court while admitting the revision on O5.09.201 1, granted interim suspension of the sentence of imprisonment alone, by directing that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.S,OOO/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, Karimnagar.
15. In the present case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the offences under Sections.3o4-A and 337 of I.P.C., which finding, in my
considered view, does not call for interlerence of this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr'P'C'
16. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the \.\,e11 considered judgments of the Courts below and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed' 17 . However, as 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 modify the sentence imposed by the appellate Court, while confirming the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences.
18. Therefore, the petitioner/ accused No'2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months insteadofsixmonthssimpleimprisonmentforboththeoffences i.e., under Section 304-4 and 337 of I'P'C' while giving set off to the period of imprisonment already undergone' The petitioner shall surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining period of sentence forthwith. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand cancelled.
'"1
19. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case in all other aspects, stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed' SD/- M.RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The lll Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge' Karimnagar i. it" Jroi. Fitst Class Magistrate, Huiurabad' Karimnagar Dist' ;. d;eC t" sit n pnneHnKAR RAo Advocate [oPUC] ;. il; ca; t"ine pualtc pibseiuron'fiG)'rsHc at Hvderabad [oUr]
5. Two CD CoPies AA w-
HIGH COURT EWJ DATED: 0111112023 $E STAI { ( o [3 JAl'l 2OA vJ a)
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1781 ot 2011 l'
l.
* OESrrt,l C THE CRIM!NAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED g c4fta fiIt-"