Partly allowed

S. Doraswamy, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Feb 2020CRLRC/724/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision concerning a fatal road accident upheld the conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death (Section 304-A IPC) and grievous hurt (Section 337 IPC). The court reduced the sentence from one year to six months imprisonment while confirming the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced from one year to six months rigorous imprisonment; prior period to be set off.

S. Doraswamy, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.724 OF 2008

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶4

The present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment, dated 29.4.2008, in Criminal Appeal No.245 of 2005 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, wherein and where under, the appeal was partly allowed confirming the conviction passed by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor against the petitioner/accused vide judgment, dated 31.08.2005, in C.C.No.429 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C., and modifying the sentence of imprisonment and reducing the same from rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years to one year only for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is as under:

¶6

On 01.08.2004, at 4:50 A.M., the accused drove TN SETC Bus bearing No.TN-07/N-9296 in a rash and negligent manner on on Chittoor Vellore Road, near R.M.M. Juice Factory, Ganga Sagaram, Chittoor and dashed against the pedestrians, who were going in the left side of the tar road. As a result, the pedestrians viz., 1) S.Bhaskaran @ Elangovan, 2) N.Saravanan and 3) Dandapani sustained bleeding injuries. Out of them, the pedestrians Bhaskaran and Saravanan died instantaneously on

¶7

¶8

the spot and one Dandapani was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor for treatment. A case in Crime No.82 of 2004 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the police laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C.

¶9

On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶10

To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-23 and M.Os.1 and 2. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which he denied. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

¶11

Considering the evidence of the eye witnesses more particularly, the injured eye witness, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a

¶12

¶13

period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C. On appeal, the same was partly allowed confirming the conviction passed by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor against the petitioner/accused in the judgment, dated 31.08.2005, in C.C.No.429 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. and modifying the sentence of imprisonment and reducing the same from rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. to one year only. Challenging the same, the present revision came to be filed by the accused.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the Court below should have drawn an adverse inference on the failure on the part of the prosecution in not examining the crucial witnesses. He further submits that the procedure, as required under law, was not followed by the investigating agency.

¶15

The same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶16

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that the investigating agency failed to follow the procedure, however, did not point out any such irregularity in the process of investigation. The other issue which is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution failed to examine the crucial witnesses, but a perusal of the material on record would show that on 31.7.2004, at about 4:00 P.M., P.W.1, deceased Nos.1 and 2 and others started at Latheri on foot to go to Tirumala and on 01.08.2004, at about 4:50 A.M., they reached Gangasagaram outskirts near RMM Juice Factory. At that time,

¶17

¶18

deceased Nos.1 and 2 and P.W.3 were proceeding ahead of him at a distance of 50 feet. At that time, a bus bearing No.TN-07-N-9296 came from behind, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against deceased Nos.1 and 2 while P.W.3 due to which, deceased Nos.1 and 2 died while P.W.3 received injuries. The bus was stopped at a distance of 100 feet from the scene of offence and the driver of the bus got down from the bus and came to the scene of offence. He enquired the name of the driver who revealed his name as “Doraswamy”. Having regard to the fact that P.W.3 was still struggling with life, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a report setting the law into motion. Though P.W.1 was cross examined at length, nothing came to be elicited to discredit his testimony. The version of P.W.1 gets corroboration in all respects from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4. They also speaks about the manner in which the accident took place.

¶19

P.W.3 is the injured eye witness, who in categorical terms, speaks about the accused hitting them. Though learned counsel tried to point out that there is some discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 regarding the time as to when the accident took place but in my view, the same cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

¶20

From the rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is placed on record as Ex.P-20, it is clear that the accident took place while deceased Nos.1 and 2 and P.W.3 were going on the left side of the road and the bus stopped at a distance of 100 feet from the scene. The rough sketch itself shows the manner in which the

¶21

¶22

accident took place. Hence, the finding of the trial Court in holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus cannot be said to be illegal or incorrect.

¶23

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the incident took place in the year 2004 and the driver was aged 46 years then, pleads for reduction of sentence but the same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor stating that since two persons died and one person sustained injuries, the appellate Court has shown much lenience in reducing the sentence from two years to one year. As seen from the record, the incident took place in the year 2004. The revision petitioner was aged 46 years then. He must be 61 years right now. Taking into consideration the factual situation and as there are two deaths and injuries to one person, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six (6) months.

¶24

Accordingly, while confirming the conviction passed by the Court below, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from one year to six (6) months. The period of imprisonment undergone, if any, by the petitioner/accused shall be given set off.

¶25

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶26

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶27

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

Date : 17.2.2020 AMD

192

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶32

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.724 OF 2008

¶33

Date : 17.2.2020

¶34

AMD

S. Doraswamy, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Doraswamy, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peddina Venkata Rao , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Machani Jagadeesh, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and Another

Smt. B.Maheswari Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Vallam Muni Prabhakar and Another, Vs the Stte of a.P., Rpe by Its Pubic Prosecutor

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Meesala Kalavathi

Mr. P.Raghunadh, Vs State of a.P., Rep by P., and Another