Partly allowed¶61

Addanki Santhiraju v. the State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Aug 2025CRLRC/2134/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 338 IPC; rash and negligent driving; sentencing; proportionality; reduction of sentence; sentence modification; first-time offender; delay of 20 years; plea of guilty; fine confirmed imprisonment set aside; bail bonds discharged; revisional jurisdiction Sections 397/401 CrPC; State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand (2004) 7 SCC 659; Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar (2013) 9 SCC 516; Criminal Revision Case No. 2134 of 2009; Crl.A.No.251 of 2008; C.C.No.245 of 2005; Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao.

What did the court decide?

Conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section 338 IPC upheld; sentence of six months' Simple Imprisonment set aside; the fine imposed by the Trial Court (as upheld by the first Appellate Court) confirmed; bail bonds of the accused discharged. ¶61

Addanki Santhiraju Vs the State of A.P. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Does the sentence passed by the Trial Court, as upheld by the first Appellate Court, warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?

¶41

Court's answer

It is a well-established principle of sentencing policy that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven offence; the sentence should be neither nominal nor excessive and must be determined case-by-case on the specific facts and circumstances.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

There is no allegation that the accused was under the influence of liquor or any other impairing substance at the time of the accident; the act was rash and negligent driving simpliciter, not an aggravated offence involving inebriation warranting a stricter sentence.

¶50

Key takeaways

In exercise of revisional powers, the Court need not undertake an in-depth and minute re-examination of the entire evidence where there is no error in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court (settled law as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand).obiter¶43
The petitioner is a first-time offender with no prior criminal record, was approximately 20 years old at the time of the 30.04.2005 accident, and incarceration after nearly 20 years could severely disrupt his personal life and the welfare of his dependent family.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC against the concurrent findings below: the Andhra Pradesh High Court (T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.) upheld the conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section 338 IPC — rested on his plea of guilt before the Trial Court in C.C.No.245 of 2005 arising from the 30.04.2005 minivan-lorry collision near Balabhadrapuram Bridge — but interfered with the sentence alone. The six months' simple imprisonment confirmed by the first Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.251 of 2008 was held disproportionately severe and excessive, having regard to the absence of any aggravating circumstance such as drunken driving, the petitioner being a first-time offender aged about 20 years at the time of the accident, and the lapse of nearly 20 years; the imprisonment was set aside, the Trial Court's fine confirmed and the bail bonds discharged. Reliance placed on State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659, and Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516, on the cardinal principle of proportionality in sentencing. Criminal Revision Case partly allowed.

[3369]

APHC010392212009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

FRIDAY, THE T WENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2134/2009

¶9

Between:

¶10

ADDANKI SANTHIR A JU, S/O SRI DAVID RAJU, R/O MUDUNURU, PENTAPADU MAND A L, W.G.DIST.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Co u rt of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t hat in the circumstances stated in th e affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court m a y be pleased to present this mem o randum of Crl.R.C., before this H o n'ble Court against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.251 of 2008, dat e d 10.12.09 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, E.G.Dist., at R a jahmundry, preferred against the Judg m ent made in C.C.No.245 of 2005, date d 29.07.08.

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2987 OF 2009

¶17

Petition under Sectio n 151 CPC praying that in the circumsta n ces stated in the affidavit filed in supp o rt of the petition, the High Court may b e pleased to dispense with the filing o f the certified copy of the Judgme n t made in C.C.No.245 of 2005 on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, date d 29.07.08.

¶18

IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 3005 OF 2009

¶19

¶20

Petition under Section 151 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.251 of 2008, dated 10.12.09 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, E.G.Dist., at Rajahmundry, preferred against the Judgment made in C.C.No.245 of 2005, dated 29.07.08 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramachandrapuram, and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.N SIVA REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶24

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶26

1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused, assailing the Judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.251 of 2008 by the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, the ‘1^st Appellate Court’), whereby the 1^st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offence under section 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) vide Judgment dated 29.07.2008 passed in C.C.No.245 of 2005 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram (for short, the ‘Trial Court’).

¶27

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as they were before the Trial Court.

¶28

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:

¶29

(a) On the early hours of 30.04.2005, Addanki Mukteswara Rao left his house to go to duty and arrived at Biccavole Bridge. There, he boarded the Swaraj Mazda minivan bearing No.AP11 U 1619,

¶30

¶31

coming from Samalkota towards Dwarapudi. Around 7:00 AM, after passing Balabhadrapuram Bridge, the accused, driving the minivan, rashly and negligently collided with the rear of a stationary lorry bearing No.AP26 T 3519 on the left side of the road. The front of the minivan was severely damaged, and Mukteswara Rao sustained fractures to his both legs and a bleeding head injury. The accused also suffered injuries.

¶32

(b) Head Constable P. Suryanaraya of Biccavole Police Station recorded Mukteswara Rao’s statement at 8:30 AM the same day and registered a case (Cr. No. 41 of 2005) under Section 338 IPC. Dr. B. Rambabu, Casualty Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Kakinada, examined Mukteswara Rao and issued a wound certificate noting seven injuries, two of which were grievous. Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused.

¶33

4. The learned Trial Court took cognizance under Section 338 of the IPC against the accused. Upon his appearance, copies of relevant documents were furnished as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The accused was then examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., where the substance of the accusation was explained to him in Telugu. The accused voluntarily admitted to the offence under section 338 of the IPC and pleaded guilty.

¶34

5. After recording the accused’s plea of guilty, the Trial Court found him guilty of the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC. By its judgment, dated 29.07.2008 in C.C.No.245 of 2005, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer six months’ Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, with an additional two months’ Simple Imprisonment in default of payment.

¶35

6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.251 of 2008 before the 1^st

¶36

¶37

Appellate Court. The 1^st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the Trial Court in C.C.No.245 of 2005, dated 29.07.2008. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment of the 1^st Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.251 of 2008.

¶38

7. In the Revision Petition, it is contended that both courts erred in convicting the petitioner without any evidence on record; the conviction was wrongly based on an alleged admission obtained by police through misrepresentation, falsely assuring the petitioner he would only be fined; the prosecution failed to have the vehicle examined by the RTO or to seize the trip sheet to establish that the petitioner was driving at the relevant time; no test identification was conducted to confirm the petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle.

¶39

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that he is pressing the revision petition only insofar as the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is concerned, but the petitioner is not challenging the conviction under Section 338 of the IPC. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that the sentence imposed may be modified. It is contended that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner of his family. Furthermore, the petitioner has no prior criminal record.

¶40

9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶41

Does the sentence passed by the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1^st Appellate Court, warrant interference?

¶42

P O I N T :

¶43

10. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand¹ , that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest

¶44

1 (2004) 7 SCC 659

¶45

¶46

reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1^st Appellate Court”.

¶47

11. As reflected in the record, the Trial Court imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for six months on the accused for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC, along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, which was upheld by the 1^st Appellate Court.

¶48

12. It is a well-established principle of sentencing policy that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven offence. The sentence should be neither nominal nor excessive. What constitutes a proportionate sentence must be determined on a case-by-case basis, having due regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each matter.

¶49

13. While ordering the sentence, the facts and circumstances of each of the case before the court has to be appreciated on its own merits and the circumstances in one criminal case cannot be taken as a binding precedent in so far as the order on sentence in another case, unless the facts and circumstances of each of the instances corresponds to each other or exactly tallies. But always, the court must bear in mind the cardinal principle that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, and it should not be excessive or exorbitant.

¶50

14. True that in the instant case, the petitioner / accused has been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no allegation that the accused was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his ability to drive at the time of the accident. The act was one of rash and negligent driving simpliciter, and not one involving inebriation, a factor which, if present, would have constituted an aggravated and despicable offence warranting a stricter and more severe sentence.

¶51

¶52

15. In Hazara Singh V. Raj Kumar² , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

¶53

“10. … it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict.”

¶54

"11. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases."

¶55

16. When questioned by the Trial Court on the quantum of sentence, the petitioner / accused chose not to make any submission.

¶56

17. As seen from the record, the offence in question occurred on 30.04.2005, nearly 20 years ago, and the petitioner was approximately 20 years old at the time of the accident. Upon consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/accused is a first-time offender and has no prior criminal record or antecedents.

¶57

18. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused, his age, economic condition, and the significant passage of time since the incident, this court is inclined to assess the implications of imprisonment at this juncture. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could severely disrupt the petitioner's personal life and adversely impact the welfare of his family, who may be dependent on him. Accordingly, this court finds that the sentence imposed under Section 338 of the IPC is disproportionately severe and may be deemed excessive. In light of these factors, this court views that this case presents exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention, particularly, concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Given the absence of any prior criminal record, this court concludes that the sentence imposed on

¶58

2 (2013) 9 SCC 516

¶59

¶60

the accused under Section 338 of the IPC should be reconsidered as excessive. Therefore, this court deems it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgments solely to the extent of setting aside the imprisonment imposed by both Courts, while upholding to impose a fine of Rs.500/-, which adequately serves the interests of justice. Point is answered accordingly.

¶61

19. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed . The conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section 338 of the IPC, as affirmed by the judgments of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram (dated 14.08.2008 in C.C.No.245 of 2005) and the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, is upheld. However, the sentence is modified as follows: (i) the sentence of Simple Imprisonment (SI) for a period of six months is set aside, and (ii) the fine imposed by the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1^st Appellate Court, is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the bail bonds of the accused are hereby discharged. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit a copy of this order, along with the case records, to both the Trial Court and the 1^st Appellate Court for necessary compliance.

¶62

Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶63

_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶64

Date: 22.08.2025 SAK

¶65

¶66

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶67

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2134 of 2009

¶68