Partly allowed

Sindrupu Apparao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Dec 2023CRLRC/2147/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against conviction under Sections 304-A, 338, and 337 IPC for rash and negligent driving causing death, the High Court upheld the lower courts' findings. Due to the lapse of time, the imprisonment term was reduced from one year to six months while fines were affirmed.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced from one year to six months under Section 304A of IPC; fines affirmed.

Sindrupu Apparao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2147 of 2009

¶7

Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.330 of 2008, dated 09.12.2009 on the^{fileoftheCourtofthe} Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions^{Judge,Rajahmundry,} East Godavari District preferred against the Order^made in C.C.No.102 of 2005, dated 14.10.2008 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sindrupu Apparao, S/o Govendarayulu, Hindu, age 27 years, R/o Z- Ragampeta Village, Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari^District.

¶10

...Petitioner/Appeliant/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.

¶13

...Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant

¶14

LA. NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP. NO: 3025 OF 2009)

¶15

Petition filed under Section 397(1) CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.330^of2008,dated 09.12.2009 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family^{Court-cum-Additional} District and Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, preferred against the Order made in C.C.No.102 of 2005, dated^{14.10.08onthefileofthe} Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of^theCrI.R.C.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶17

: Sri N Siva Reddy

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2147 of 2009

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against^the Judgment, dated 09.12.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal^No.330 of 2008 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, confirming the Judgment, dated 14.10.2008, passed in CC No. 102 of 2005 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram.

¶24

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.01.2005 the deceased along with his wife, who is defacto complainant,^and their son came to Drakharama on their cycle for watching first show cinema. After watching the cinema, while they were returning to Satyawada, at about 09.45 p.m., when they^reached the outskirts of Drakharama, the accused who was the driver of a husk load lorry bearing No.AHF 27 coming from Kotipalli^towards Draksharama in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed the cycle of deceased. As a result, all^thethreefell down on the road from the cycle and the defacto complainant

¶25

¶26

Matcha Satyavathi received injury on her right hand and also received contusions. The deceased received injury over^hishead and he was unable to speak and their son Suresh received injury on right forearm and on his forehead. Soon after the accident, the accused escaped from the spot by leaving the crime vehicle. Thereafter, the Head Constable of Drakharama Police Station recorded the statement of the defacto complainant and registered a case in Crime No. 12 of 2005 for the offence under Section 337 IPC. On 28.01.2005 at 1.00 p.m., the Sub Inspector of Police, Draksharama police station received death intimation of the deceased. Police after conducting investigation filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC.

¶27

During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs.l to 10 were examined and Exs.Pl to P13 are marked before the trial Court. 4. The learned Magistrate, vide Judgment dated 14.10.2008 in C.C.No.102 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, after considering

¶28

¶29

the entire oral and documentary evidence on record,^foundthe petitioner herein guilty of the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and accordingly convicted him in terms of Section 255(2) Cr.P.C, and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. He was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 338 IPC and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months and Rs.500/- as fine for the offence under Section 337 IPC and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. 5. Against the said conviction and sentence passed by^the learned Magistrate, the petitioner herein filed Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2008 on the file of the learned Family Court-cumAdditional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry and the Appellate Court, by impugned Judgment dated 09.12.2008, dismissed the said appeal by confirming^the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶30

¶31

Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

¶32

Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-state. 7. Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without their being any evidence on record and more particularly when the alleged eye witnesses i.e. PW3 and PW4 are turned hostile and did not support the prosecution,^the learned Magistrate erred in convicting the petitioner of the alleged offences. He further submits that there are many contradictions and omissions which were not considered by the trial Court, as well as, the Sessions Court and the prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner by adducing cogent evidence and failed to prove the guilt^ofthe accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶33

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PWl and PW2 is corroborating and consistent that while the deceased was riding the cycle, the

¶34

¶35

lorry of the accused came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the cycle. In the said accident,^both hands and legs of the deceased were crushed and the^evidence of PWl and PW2 who are injured narrated how the accused^rash and negligently drove the lorry and caused the accident.^Thetrial Court as well as Sessions Court came to a conclusion that the accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner resulting death of the deceased, simple and grievous injuries^toPW2and PW3, and found that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the sentence imposed on accused is also meager and there is no material^on record to interfere with the concurrent findings of^{boththeCourts} below.

¶36

Now the point that arises for determination in this^revision is "whether there is any flaw or illegality or impropriety^inthe findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court? // 10. In view of the law laid down in Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein,^we should see whether there is a palpable error in the^{decisionofthe}

¶37

¶38

trial Court as well as Appellate Court in considering the evidence and passed conviction or which is erroneous. In this regard, this Court is intended to refer the evidence of PWsl and 2 who are injured. The evidence of PWl is that PWl along^with her husband and her son on 21.01.2005 at about 09.45 pm while returning by cycle from lakshmi theater to their house at Satyavada and when they reached Vijaya talkies, Draksharama,^a lorry bearing No.AHF 27 coming from Kotipalli towards Drakharama in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed against the cycle of deceased, resulting which, they fell down and the deceased sustained head injury and^hishands and legs were crushed. After vomiting he immediately^became unconscious and son of the deceased sustained fracture injury to his right hand and to his head and she received injury^on her head, hands and back. PWl in his cross examination consistently narrated the incident that occurred on 21.01.2005. PW2 who is a minor, as he is a child witness, the trial Court recorded his evidence after putting preliminary questions and after^satisfied that he is capable of understanding the questions put^tohimand

¶39

¶40

can give rational answers, he was examined and he also corroborated and supported the evidence given by PWl in all material particulars. PW3 and PW4 who are said to be^eye witnesses, did not support the case of prosecution^andturned hostile. PW5 who is examined as an Inquest Mediator, his evidence may not be helpful to determine whether there^isarash and negligence on the part of accused while driving^thehusk lorry. PW6 is the doctor who conducted Post Mortem^overthe dead body of the deceased. PW7 is the Motor Vehicle^Inspector who issued Ex.P6 Certificate stating that there was^nomechanical defect on the crime vehicle bearing No.AHF 27. PW8 is the Doctor who issued Ex.P7 i.e. wound certificate of PW2 opined that there is fracture to right hand forearm which^isgrievousin nature and other injury on the right side of head is^simple in nature. He also issued Ex.P8 i.e. wound certificate of PWl opined that the injuries said to be received by PWl^aresimplein nature. PWlO who is Head Constable stated that on 21.01.2005 at 09.30 p.m. on receiving a message about the accident,^he rushed to the scene of offence, found a cyclist, a lady and a boy

¶41

¶42

on the road. It is his further evidence that the male person was in unconscious state. He recorded the statement of PWl and shifted them to Area Hospital, Ramachadrapuram. Basing^onthe statement given by PWl, he registered First Information Report. All the evidence of witnesses placed on record by the prosecution before the trial Court are corroborating with each other and consistent. The evidence of PW2 is also consistent and corroborating with PWl narrated how the accident occurred. According to PWlO, the statement of PWl was recorded at police station, whereas, according to PWl, her statement was recorded at area hospital. Except this there is no other contradiction in the evidence of PWl. 11. The learned Magistrate after taking the said aspects^into consideration and relying upon the evidence of PWl and PW2 coupled with the evidence of PW7 and PW8 found the petitioner herein guilty for the rash and negligent driving of the husk lorry and accordingly convicted him. The appellate Court also after considering the entire material on record and concurred with the view taken by the learned Magistrate that the accused^drovethe

¶43

¶44

I 1

¶45

lorty in a high and uncontrolled speed and dashed the cycle and resulted death of the deceased. Both the Courts below on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record rightly found the accused guilty for the alleged offences, and the observations made by both the Courts below are on correct line^. Hence, this Court is in total concurrence with the observations made by both the Courts below and this Court has no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments passed by^boththe Courts below.

¶46

However, since the incident occurred in the year 2005 and more than 18 years period has been lapsed, detaining the accused in the jail would not suffice at this stage. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment of one year passed is reduced to six months under Section 304A of IPC. The other sentence of payment of fine as convicted by the trial Court shall remain same. 13. Accordingly, with the above modification in sentence,^the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The accused is directed to serve the sentence as imposed above by surrendering himself

¶47

¶48

before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

¶49

Ra macha nd ra pu ra m.

¶50

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶51

pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

SDI- M RAMESH BABU

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ’

¶58

The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram , East Godavari District.

¶59

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari^District 4. The Station House Officer, Draksharama Police Station, East Godavari District.

¶60

The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi 6. One CC to Sri N. Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT]

¶61

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/12/2023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2147 of 2009

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶69

Sindrupu Apparao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindrupu Apparao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandela Sekhar Vs the State of A.P.

Tirumalanadhuni Ramu Vs the State of Ap

Tirumalanadhuni Ramu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Nagendrudu Vs The State of A.P.

Malli Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Vs the State of A.P.

Pamarthy Satyanarayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh