Dismissed

Mohammad Hussain Mohiddin v. the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2023CRLRC/1695/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision filed by an appellant convicted of offences under IPC 304A and 337 and MV Act 134. The High Court analyzed evidence from injured eyewitnesses confirming the accused drove the vehicle rashly. Finding the lower courts' conclusions well-founded, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was directed to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; appellant directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence and given set-off for time spent in jail.

Mohammad Hussain Mohiddin Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1695 OF 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohammad Hussain Mohiddin, S/o Mohammad Hussain, aged about 26 years resident of D.No.4-31, Samireddipalle, GudiyattamTaluk, Vellore District’ I amilnadu State.

¶8

...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A P Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

...Respondent/Respondent

¶12

Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati in 6-3-2009 as confirmed in judgment passed in Crl.A.No.35 of 2009, dt. 19-08-2011 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Tirupati, Chittoor District. *

¶13

LA. NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP. NO: 2526 OF 20111

¶14

- under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. praying that in^{thecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the execution of sentence imposed in the order passed by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Tirupati in CC.No.491/2007, dt.16-3-2009 as confirmed in judgment passed in Crl.A.no.35/2009, dt. 19-08-2011 on the file of the court of VI Additional (f"TC) Tirupati, Chittoor District, pending disposal of in© uri.K.c.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1695 of 2011

¶20

ORDER;

¶21

Assailing the judgment dated 19.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District 86 Sessions Judge(FTC), Tirupati, confirming the conviction^and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused for^theoffences under Section 304A, 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 134(a) and (b) r/w.l87^ofMotor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as M.V.Act”) by the judgment dated 16.03.2009 in C.C.No.491 of 2007 on the file of Court of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). 2. The revision case ^vas admitted on 23.08.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner^was suspended yide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2526 of 2011. 3. The petitioner was arrayed as accused in Cr.No.l43 of 2007 of Chandragiri Police Station for the offences under Section 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b)

¶22

¶23

r/w. 187 of M.V.Act and after thorough investigation police laid the charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.491 of 2007 on the file of Court of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, and after full pledged trial, found the accused guilty for the offences under Section 304A, 337 of IPC and Section 134(a) & (b) r/w. 187 of M.V.Act^and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period^ofthree (3) months, one (1) month and fifteen (15) days respectively^and all the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶24

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.35 of 2009, before the Court of learned VI Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirupati and the same was dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by^thetrial Court against the petitioner.

¶25

Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court,^the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner / accused.

¶26

Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court as well first appellate^Courtrelied upon the testimony of interested witness and convicted the

¶27

¶28

accused, which is incorrect under law; that there is a discrepancy among the testimony of P.Ws.l to 3, 5, 7 and 8; that P.Ws.6 and 9 even not supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile; that there is no proof that petitioner was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and that mere driving of the vehicle in high speed does not come under the rash and negligence in view of the provisions under the act. 7. He further submits that no witness identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. Thereby, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court,^which were confirmed by the first appellate Court, are liable^tobeset aside.

¶29

As against the same, Smt.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are concurrent findings recorded regarding the fact that the aceused^wasthe driver of the Tata sumo bearing No.AP 03 G 5119 at^thetimeof incident; that there is a clear evidence from the testimony^of P.Ws.5 and 8, which clinchingly established that the^accused was the driver of the vehicle, who drove the same in^arashand negligent manner and hit the stationed APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 4925, resulting death of six (6) persons, among

¶30

¶31

them three (3) persons died at the spot and three (3) persons died while undergoing treatment and P.Ws.5 and 8 are^received injuries, who categorically deposed that accused drove^thecrime vehicle at high speed of 120 k.m. per hour at the time of accident.

¶32

She further submits that the trial Court after considering the entire material on record, rightly convicted the^accusedand the same was upheld by the first appellate Court. Thereby,^there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts below.

¶33

Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?’

¶34

To determine the above said point, this Court perused^the evidence on record and in all the prosecution examined^sixteen (16) witnesses, among them P.Ws.5 and 8, who are injured^as well direct witnesses to the incident.

¶35

The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8 reveals that in particularly P.W.5 deposed that on 02.05.2004, he along with other deceased persons and injured were coming to Tirupati for marriage proposal in Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 03 5119^and

¶36

¶37

when they reached to Angarala Village at about 11.00, the driver of the said Tata Sumo drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationed RTC^Bus and three persons by name Sundara Raju, Manoj Kumar^and Ammulu died on the spot and two persons by name Pooja^and Niteesh died in the hospital. He sustained injuries^on his left leg, left hand and right hand fingers. Then police shifted him along with deceased to the hospital. 13. During the cross examination nothing was elicited to disbelieve his testimony. On the other hand, he consistently deposed that at the time of accident the accused drove^thecrime vehicle at 100 to 120 k.m. per hour in a rash and negligent manner. May be true, he deposed that there is a turning^before the accident place at Agnarala Village, but the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner.

¶38

As well P.W.8 by name K.Kavitha deposed that on 02.05.2004 at about 08.30 a.m., she along with deceased persons, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.7, P.W.5 and L.W.IO Soundarya along with her child went to Tirupati for marriage proposal and when they reached to Chandragiri, the Tata Sumo vehicle dashed one RTC Bus and three persons died on the spot^and

¶39

¶40

three persons died while undergoing treatment. She sustained injuries on mouth, teeth and face on left side under cheek and after the accident she is facing hearing problem. She identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Nothing was elicited in her evidence to believe the contention of the accused that he was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

¶41

On perusal of the material on record i.e., Exs.P. 1 to P.27 in particularly Ex.P.17 wound certificate of P.W.5, Ex. P.18 wound certificate of P.W.3, Ex. P.19 wound certificate of L.W.lO/Soundariya, Ex.P.20 wound certificate of P.W.7, Ex.P.21 wound certificate of P.W.6, Ex.P.22 wound certificate of P.W.8 and Ex.P.23 wound certificate of P.W.4, culminating^the fact that accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed leading to accident. 16. It is a fact that it is not a head on collusion and the manner of the accident is also not in dispute. May be true, the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 is helpful, because they were^inthe bus at the time of incident and they deposed that when the driver was about to start the bus after verification, they heard a sound from the back side of the bus and they observed that three inmates of the Tata Sumo died on the spot.

¶42

¶43

May be true, P.Ws.3 and 4 could not identify the driver^of the crime vehicle, but P.Ws.5 and 8, who are the injured^and direct witnesses to the incident, categorically deposed^aboutthe manner of the incident and identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle.

¶44

Further, P.W.9 owner of the crime vehicle deposed that^he does not know the accused, but on 01.05.2004 one Sundara Raja Naidu (deceased) asked him for the Tata Sumo for alliance of his second son and he voluntarily gave the vehicle^tothesaid deceased and on the next day he received information that his vehicle meet with an accident.

¶45

¶46

Whatever facts stated by P.W.9 corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8, whose evidence is cogent and convincing and nothing found from their evidence to disbelieve their testimony regarding manner of the accident and identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. 20. In view of the facts and circumstances, above discussion and material placed on record, there is nothing on^record to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court as well first appellate Court in convicting the^accusedfor the offences under Section 304A, 337 of IPC and Section 134(a)

¶47

¶48

86 (b) r/w. 187 of M.V.Act. More so, regarding quantum of sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused. the trial Court take a lenient vieiv and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) months, one (1) month and fifteen (15) days respectively and all the sentences shall run concurrently. Thereby, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts below and no merits in this revision. Therefore, the present revision is liable for dismissal.

¶49

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 19.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2009 on the file of Court of learned VI Additional District 86 Sessions Judge(FTC), Tirupati. The period of sentence, if any. already undergone by the petitioner/accused, shall be given setoff under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, to serve the remaining sentence.

¶50

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed.

¶51

SD/- M. RAI H BABU DEPUTY^ ilSTRAR //TRUE COPY// c SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To.

¶53

^ District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Tirupati, Chittoor 'V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati,^Chittoor loiricx. 3. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUCl 4. Two CC’s to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUTl 6.' Thie C^D°CopSr'^’ Section, High Court of A.P. at^Amaravati.

ssb

/^vcU'^O,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/12/2023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1695 of 2011

¶60

/ x 0«f
o 2 9 APR 202^ iP)
\s>

¶61

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

Mohammad Hussain Mohiddin v. the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Hussain Mohiddin v. the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P

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

State of A.P. Vs G. Damodar Naidu

S. Shafiullah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Sindrupu Apparao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Pedda Narsimhulu, Proddatur, Y.S.R.District Vs Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Traders, Guntur and Anr, Rep.by Pp., Hyd

Mannepalli Israel, Vs State of A.P.

Balija Rayachotaiah at Raju, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.