Partly allowed

Surada Jagadish v. the State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Dec 2023CRLRC/1508/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision and appellate case involving rash and negligent driving causing death and injury, the High Court upheld the trial court's conviction but reduced the sentence from one year to six months. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to alleviate disproportion by reducing the term to six months from the original one-year sentence, while affirming the conviction.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed on the petitioner under Section 304-A of IPC was reduced to six months. The conviction was upheld.

Surada Jagadish Vs the State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1508 OF 2010

¶6

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), E.G. Dist., Rajahmundry, dated 11.08.2010 in confirming the conviction imposed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.69 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthy, dated 12.03.2010 and allow the CrI.R.C., by acquitting the petitioner for the offence for which he charged.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Surada Jagadish, S/o Subba Rao, Aged about 26 years. Driver of Auto AP 5Y 4344, R/o Suryaraopeta, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶9

...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

State of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶12

...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

¶13

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2010fCRLRCMP. NO: 2206 OF 2010)

¶14

Petition under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C praying that^{inthecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment passed^{inCrl.A.No.99of2010} on the file of the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), E.G.Dist., Rajahmundry, dated 11.08.2010 in confirming the conviction imposed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.69 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthy, dated 12.03.2010 and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the CrI.R.C.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y. SUDHAKAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1508 of 2010

¶20

ORDER;

¶21

Assailing the judgment dated 11.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned VIII Additional District 86 Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari at Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 12.03.2010 in C.C.No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anaparthy, for the offence under section 304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/v/.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). 2. The revision case was admitted on 24.08.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2206 of 2010. 3. The petitioner was arrayed as accused in Cr.No.67 of 2005 of Anaparthy Police Station for the offence under Section 304-A and 338 of IPC and after completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as

¶22

¶23

file of the Court of learned Judicial C.C.No.69 of 2009 on the conducted Class, Anaparthy and trial^was Magistrate of First and found the accused guilty of the charges under Section sentenced to undergo simple 304-A and 338 of IPC and and also sentenced to a period of one (1) year imprisonment for fine of Rs.1.000/-, in default suffer simple imprisonment pay a for fifteen (15) days, respectively for the above charges leveled against him.

¶24

appeal, 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an the Court of learned Vlll vide Crl.A.No.99 of 2010, before Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari at Rajahmundry and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

¶25

of the first Appellate Court, the 5. Against the said judgment criminal revision case was preferred by the present petitioner/ accused. 6. Heard Sri Y .Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner Public Prosecutor for the respondent, and learned Assistant for determination in this 7. Now the point that arises manifest error of law or flagrant revision is “whether there is any the findings recorded by the Trial Court miscarriage of justice in as well first Appellate Court?^

¶26

counsel for the petitioner 8. Sri Y.Sudhakar, learned of the does not contain the name submits that Ex.P.l report did not conduct any test accused; that investigating agency the driver of that accused was identification parade to prove crime vehicle; that m Ex.P.l did not mention the name and of the crime vehicle; that the photographs said to be particulars filed before the trial Court taken at the scene^{ofoffencewerenot} as well in the first appellate Court; that prosecution did not the charge sheet; that examine the photographer mentioned in ice officials colluded with even the accident did not occur, police against the accused P.Ws.l to 4 and created the present case from the insurance company, for grabbing the money accused had not escaped from 9. He further submits that of the injured person and the scene of offence, he is also one the guilt of the that the prosecution miserably failed to prove accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the trial Court went wrong m 10. He further submits that accused and sentenced him for a period of one (1) convicting the the charge under Section 304-A of IPC and also year for fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the charge under sentenced him to pay confirmed in all aspects by Section 338 of IPC and the same was

¶27

¶28

the first appellate court, which is not in accordance with law and liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is no need to conduct any test identification parade as the accident occurred at 09.30 a.m., which is a day time and that accused driver and passengers, who are P.Ws.l to 4 travelled with the accused for one hour from Kakinada to Anaparthy and they all have facial acquaintance with each other. In those circumstances,^thereis no need to conduct any test identification parade. 12. He further submits that if there are any omissions or contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, that does not amount to effect the case of the prosecution. Both the trial Court as well first appellate Court rightly consider the facts and evidence on record and categorically gave a finding that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond^alldoubt , as P.Ws.l to 4, who are injured persons and direct witnesses to the incident, supported the case of the prosecution. Thereby, prosecution established its case categorically and simple contradictions and omissions in the testimony of P.Ws.^1to 4 did not cut the root of the prosecution case.

¶29

¶30

In view of the above rival eontentions, now, this Court closely perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses placed before the trial Court. Admittedly, P.Ws.l to^4arethe direct witnesses to the incident and they unequivocally deposed that they are doing dry fish business along with two^deceased by name Kameswary and Nelamma and went to Kakinada market for purchasing dry fish. After purchasing dry fish, inorder to come to Dowleswaram from Kakinada at 09.00 a.m., they boarded an auto driven by the petitioner/accused and when they reached Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Anaparthy, the petitioner drove the said auto with high speed in a negligent manner, resulting the hooks of the lorry entangled^therodsof the auto and as such top of the auto was removed and the persons who sat on the left side of the auto sustained severe injuries.

¶31

Their evidence clearly goes to show that Kameswari sustained fracture injuries on hands and legs, Narayanamma sustained head injury and fell unconscious and Neelamma sustained fracture injuries to her right leg and rod^oftheauto was penetrated into her chest and that the incident happened while crossing the lorry, the auto dashed right side of the lorry

¶32

¶33

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, who is petitioner herein.

¶34

The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, who are injured persons and direct witnesses to the incident, inspires confidence on both the Courts below, and they were cross examined at length, but nothing was elicited to disbelieve their testimony. No oblique motive attributed against them as to why they speak against the accused.

¶35

May be true, P.W.5 K.Surayamma. who is also direct witness did not support the case of the prosecution, but it does not mean to say that the incident narrated by P.Ws.l to 4 cannot be disbelieved. It is a fact found that auto hit the parked lorry said to be deposed by P.W.5 is not correct. In this case. P.W.ll/V.Padmakararao, Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspectedi the crime vehicle and opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P.9 report, dated 29.01.2010.

¶36

Very fact found from the above discussion and there is a concurrent finding recorded by the both the Courts below that the accused drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner. resulting death of two persons and injuries to five persons.

¶37

V'-

¶38

¶39

However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused brought to the notice of^thisCourt judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported between^Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka^, Mohinder Singh v. State^of Haryana^ and NagaraJ v. Union of India^.

¶40

In Manish Jalan case (referred to supra) the relevant observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.^15and 16 was that “the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of a precious human life. It was a rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition. Having regard to^theallthese facts, a lenient view can be taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced.”

¶41

Even in NagaraJ case (referred to supra), the APEX^Court at paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 held that “the appellant/accused has already undergone one month jail sentence; second, the offence in question neither against the society nor it involves any moral turpitude and nor it has resulted in causing any harm or injury to any human being except causing some

¶42

' (2008) 8 see 225

¶43

2 2019 (3) erimes 89

¶44

3 2019(1) ALT (ert)209

¶45

¶46

damage to the railway property, viz., one railway crossing gate; and lastly, the ofence is now 13 years old. In view of the aforementioned three reasons and in the interest of justice, therefore of the considered opinion that the six months jail sentence awarded to the appellate by the three Courts^below deserves to be altered to what he has already undergone by the appellant till date.”

¶47

In Mohinder Singh case (referred to supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.”

¶48

Considering the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in all the above three judgments, in^thiscase the incident happened on 16.06.2005 and by this time eighteen (18) years have been lapsed, but there were two lives^lost and five persons sustained injuries and out of which one injured person became unsound in the incident.

¶49

Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion to meet the ends of justice, the conviction is upheld, however, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six (6)

¶50

¶51

under Section 304-A of

¶52

for the charge

¶53

months from one (1) year IPC. Criminal Revision Case is allowed m

¶54

1. In the result, the t, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against under Section 304-A of IPC to that of six instead of one (1) year simple

¶55