Partly allowed

Pamarthy Satyanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Dec 2023CRLRC/995/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding a traffic accident causing death, the High Court upheld the conviction for rash and negligent driving but, citing the lapse of over 17 years, reduced the sentence from six months to three months while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Reduction of imprisonment from six months to three months; fine remains the same.

Pamarthy Satyanarayana Vs the State of… — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY JHE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 995 OF 2010

¶6

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dt: 13/05/2010 made in CrI.Appeal No.62 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole, wherein confirmed the calendar and Judgment dated 22/03/2010 made in C.C.No.258 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki Prakasam Division at Ongole.

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Pamarthy Satyanarayana, S/o. Malleswara Rao, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Annavaram Village, Nuzivid Mandal, Krishna District.

¶9

...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The Station House Officer, Medarametia Police Station, Prakasam District, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶17

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.995 of 2010

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment, dated 13.05.2010, passed in Criminal Appeal^No.62of 2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole, confirming the Judgment, dated 22.03.2010, passed in CC No.258 of 2006 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the accused being driver of the lorry bearing No.AP20 W 1918 while proceeding towards Guntur from Ongole side along with cleaner (herein after referred as 'deceased'), drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a stationed lorry bearing No. AP 16/TU 4053 from rear side resulting which due to collusion, both the vehicles got damaged and the deceased sustained severe injuries^anddiedon the spot. The accused who is driver of lorry also sustained injuries and struck in the cabin. One Dhulipudi Subba Rao and Lingubari Murali who are driver and cleaner of stationed lorry^noticed the accident. Basing on the statement of driver of stationed lorry, the present case is registered as a case in Crime No.59^of2006 of Medarametia Police Station for the offences punishable under

¶20

¶21

Sections 337 and 304A IPC. Police after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.258 of 2006 on the file the learned Judicial Addanki. ^lagistrate of First Class,

¶22

During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs.l to 8 were examined and Exs.Pi to PIO are marked before the trial Court.

¶23

The learned Magistrate, vide Judgment dated 22.03.2010 in C.C.Mo.258 of 2006 on the file of the learned First Class, Judicial Magistrate of Addanki, after considering the documentary evidence entire oral and on record, found the petitioner herein guilty of the offence under Section 304A IPC and accordingly convicted him in terms of Section 255(2) Cr.RC, and sentenced him to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Ps.300/-, in default of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 5. Against the said conviction and sentence passed by the 'earned Magistrate, the petitioner herein tiled Criminal Appeal l\lo.62 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole and the appellate Court, dy impugned Judgment dated 13.05.2010

¶24

¶25

dismissed the said appeal by confirming the conviction^andsentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner/accused.

¶26

Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-state.

¶27

Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below completely misread the^evidenceon record and came to a wrong conclusion of convicting the petitioner instead of acquitting the petitioner. He further submits that the accident was occurred only due to negligence of PWl. He stopped the vehicle on the road without applying parking lights, as well as. not made any signs of arrangement to show that the^vehiclewas parked on the road. The Court below completely omitted to consider the evidence on record that the incident happened in the midnight dark and it is very difficult to observe the^vehiclewhich was parked without parking lights. More so, the prosecution^failed to establish the rash and negligence on the part of^accused in causing accident. Infact, PWl is liable for prosecution for his

¶28

negligence. As per the photographs filed before the trial Court, it is clearly established that there i IS a curve on the road. It is very difficult for the petitioner to notice the stationed vehicle without parking lights. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that on the date of accident, PWl was proceeding with a load from Bangalore to Agartala and when he reached near Madarametia on NH-5 road, their lorry rear side tyre got punctured and therefore he stopped his lorry, The cleaner of the lorry slept in the cabin and at about 2 a. a.m. he heard big sound from the side of his lorry and when himself cabin of the lorry to check, they observed that the lorry bearing IMO.AP20W1918 dashed against their lorry from back side and the cleaner of the said vehicle died on the spot in the cabin itself The same is appreciated by the trial Court with the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and since their evidence IS cogent and consistent, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304A IPC. 9. It is further submitted by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the petitioner herein i in Criminal Appeal also took the

¶29

¶30

same defense that PWl failed to use parking lights^{andtheaccident} was occurred since there is a curve on the road at the scene^of offence and only due to negligence on the part of PWl,^theaccident occurred. Whereas, it is observed by the appellate^Courtthatthe petitioner/accused itself drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed lorry and thereby caused the accident and on account of it, the cleaner of the vehicle^who is in the offending lorry cabin died on the spot. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction passed by the trial^Court. 10. A perusal of the entire evidence, it is the version^ofPWlthat on the date of accident while he was proceeding to Bangalore to Agartala in his lorry and when he reached near National Highway-5 road near Thimmannapalem, the lorry got punctured, as such, he stationed the vehicle at midnight 12.00 a.m. At about^2.00a.m. when he and his cleaner slept in the lorry cabin, at^thattimehe heard sound and when he along with his cleaner got^downand observed that the crime vehicle hit their lorry from the rear side. due to which, the cleaner who was sleeping in the crime^vehicle died on the spot and the petitioner/accused received injuries. During the course of his cross examination, he stated that he

¶31

¶32

Stationed his lorry within the margin and also switched on the parking lights. He denied the suggestion that the lorry never got punctured and all of a sudden he stopped the vehicle. It is further stated that the front portion of the cri crime vehicle got damaged very badly. The evidence of PWl is trustworthy with regard to the manner which the accident took place, From the evidence of PWl it is evident that the front portion of the cri crime vehicle got damaged badly, which shows the rash and negligence in driving the crime vehicle by the accused at high speed. 11. Admittedly, PW2 who is elder brother of deceased visited the scene of offence and found the dead body of his brother who died in the said accident. Except the said testimony, nothing much is elicited during his cross examination. 12. PW3 stated that he along with PW2 went to the spot and observed the deceased who died on the spot due to hit by the lorry to a stationed lorry on its back, During his cross examination, he stated that PWl informed him about the accident and he has no personal knowledge about the manner of the accident took place. 13. PW4 is the one i m whose presence the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

¶33

¶34

On considering the overall circumstances and the evidence^of PWl to PW4, it is not in dispute that the accused is^{thedriverofthe} crime vehicle. The only defense pointed out by the^{learnedcounsel} for the petitioner is that PWl failed to switch on the parking lights when the vehicle was stationed, and due to which, due to darkness. the alleged accident took place, and the same is not due to negligence on the part of the petitioner/accused. But, no such suggestion is given by the accused during the course of cross examination of PWl. PWl during his cross examination consistently stated that he switched on the parking lights. The petitioner/accused in a rash negligent manner without observing the same dashed the stationed lorry. But, as could be seen^fromthe Ex.PlO Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, which reveals^thatthefront portion of the crime vehicle got damaged badly. Had the petitioner/accused maintained a safe distance and would applied breaks by observing the stationed vehicle, he would^haveavoided the accident.

¶35

Considering all these aspects, the trial Court and the Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the rash and negligent driving^oftheaccused

¶36

¶37

and the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2010 after discussing the testimonies placed on record by prosecution before the trial Court, also came to a finding that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting the death of the cleaner by name L.Murali and confirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court.

¶38

Therefore, both the Courts below on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly found the accused guilty of the offences and the observations made by both the Courts below are on correct lines. 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 both the Courts below.

¶39

However, since the incident occurred in the year 2006 and more than 17 years period has been lapsed and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not commit any offence earlier, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of

¶40

SIX months imposed by the trial Court to that of three (3) months.

¶41

¶42

The other sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court^shallremain

¶43

same.

¶44

Accordingly, with the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The accused is directed to serve the modified sentence as above by surrendering himself before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,^Addanki.

¶45

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

¶46

pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶47

SDI- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. 2. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki Prakasam Division at Ongole. 3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. 4. One CC to Sri. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi. [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court^{ofA.P.atAmaravathi.} 7. Three C.D Copies.

SSL sree

g Klesko

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/12/2023

ORDER

CRL.R.C.N0.995 OF 2010

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE CRL.R.C.

¶59

ID SrO

Pamarthy Satyanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pamarthy Satyanarayana 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

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.

Sindrupu Apparao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh