In a criminal revision concerning a motor vehicle accident resulting in death causing death, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 304-A IPC against the accused driver.
The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed; the petitioner is directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE EIG^flTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1 OF 2011
BETWEEN:-
Bandela Sekhar, S/o. Ayyanna, aged about 27 years, Hindu, Occ: Driver, R/o. Housing Board Colony, Nallakunta, Guntur.
... PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State, Station House Officer, Ponnuru Rural Police Station, Guntur District.
(Through Public Prosecutor at High Court of A.P.),
...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C set-aside the Order and conviction in Crl.A.No.465 of 2010, dated 29.12.2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur in confirming the Order and conviction dated 16.09.2010 in C.C.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, Guntur District.
Counsel for the Petitioner;- SRI. G.L. NAGESWAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondents:- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1 of 2011
ORDER:
This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 29.12.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.465 of 2010 on the file of the Courtoflearned Sessions Judge, Guntur, wherein the learned Judge hasdismissedthe appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishableunderSection 304-A I.P.C. in the judgment dated 16.09.2010 in C.C.No.18of2007 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge,Ponnur.
- Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that: On 31.10.2006 at about 02.45 p.m., a Mini Lorry bearingNo.AP20V 2266, which was proceeding towards Guntur side, wasdriven at a high speed by the petitioner/accused in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit a boy by name Kocherl Yaswanth, who was standing on the road margin, due to which he sustainedfatal injuries all over the body. The said vehicle further hit a stationed motor cycle, which was parked on the road margin, thereafter, a pole and later a tree on the road margin and then turnedturtle.Thesaid incident was witnessed by D.Luther (P.W.1), PerikalaRanimamma (P.W.3), B.Srinu (P.W.4), P.Sankara Rao (P.W.5) and G.Rathnam (P.W.6). Immediately, the deceased boy was shiftedtoGovernment General Hospital, Guntur where he succumbed to injuries
2
at 08.30 p.m, on 31.10.2006. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, A.S.I of Police (P.W.12) registered First Information Report (F.I.R) in Crime No.156 of 2006 for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C, prepared Ex.P3-observation report and Ex.P9-rough sketch in the presence of mediators. On receipt of death information from the hospital, A.S.I of Police (P.W.12) altered Sectionfrom 337 I.P.C to 304-A I.P.C.
(ii) During the course of investigation, A.S.I of Police (P.W.12) examined Perikala Ranimamma (P.W.3), B.Srinu (P.W.4)andP.Sankara Rao (P.W.5) at the scene of offence, immediately rushed to Government General Hospital, Guntur and held inquestoverthedead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and thereafter the dead body was sent for autopsy. G.Ravi Kumar (P.W.13), S.l of Police, arrested the revision petitioner. After receipt of Ex.PS-M.V.I Report and Ex.P6-P.M Report, the police filed the charge sheet.
- The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.13 and marked Ex.PI to Ex.P9. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.
3
- Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the trial Court’s judgment.
- Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.
- Heard Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for therevision petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
- Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitsthatthe appellate court, without appreciating the facts and evidence on record, confirmed the judgment mechanically; that the revision petitioner was not identified by any of the witnesses;thatthereare contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses;andthatthe
4
appellate court committed an^ error in arriving tothe conclusion. Hence, prayed to allow the revision.
- Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while supporting the impugned order submits that in support of the evidenceofP.Ws.2to6 and 8, P.W.7/owner of the vehicle also stated that the revision petitioner is the driver and Ex.P5-MVI report issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector also discloses the name of the driverasBandela Sekhar, S/o Ayyanna. Hence, there is ample evidence produced by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused and there is phma facie case against the revision petitioner/accusedandthereareno grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
- The point that arises for consideration in this revisionis:
“Whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed bythe appellate Court i.e. Sessions Judge, Guntur?"
5
- On considering the submissions:^made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of evidence on record, no doubt, defacto complainant (P.W.1) expressed his inability to identifythedriver.
6
revision petitioner herein. Th^ prosecution witnesses (P.Ws.2 to 9) categorically stated that the revision petitioner wasthedriverand their evidence amply established the identity of theaccusedatthe relevant time.
- Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 29.12.2010 in Crl.A.No.465 of 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur. The Petitioner/accusedisdirectedto surrender before the Additional Junior Civil Judge,Ponnurtoserve the remaining sentence.
- Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall standclosed.
SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR
To,
//TRUE COPY//
[/ r SECTION OFFICER
Ssl
PRK
4
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/12/2023
ORDER CRLRC.N0.1 OF 2011
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED.
5'^
0!
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bandela Sekhar
The State
V.SRINIVAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
