Chintala Rajasekhar, Guntur Dt. Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Chintala Rajasekhar, Guntur Dt. Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Challenge to the conviction rejected; conviction under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC and its appellate affirmation upheld, but sentence reduced from six months to three months simple imprisonment; suspension of sentence vacated; petitioner directed to appear before the Trial Court within eight weeks to serve the remaining sentence, with NBW on default; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution proved that the petitioner, as driver of the APSRTC bus, drove it in a rash and negligent manner causing the death of the pillion rider, thereby sustaining the conviction under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. +2 more

Court's answer

The evidence of PW.7, the bus conductor, who was inside the bus collecting tickets and did not state how the accident occurred, is not very relevant to establish rash and negligent driving by the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

PW.1, PW.2 and PW.8 categorically deposed that the petitioner drove the bus rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle from behind; the medical evidence supported that death was caused by the victim being run over by the wheel of the bus, so the prosecution justifiably proved the offences.

Key takeaways

The law laid down in Crl.R.C. No. 1602 of 2007 is factually different and distinguishable, because in the present case the prosecution witnesses categorically deposed that the driver was negligent, unlike the cited case where no witness indicated how the accident occurred.ratio¶¶55
The Appellate Court correctly appreciated the evidence and committed no error in confirming the conviction and sentence; there was no justification to entertain the revision against the conviction.ratio¶¶56
Considering that the incident occurred in 2010, that about 16 years have elapsed, and that the petitioner is now aged about 50 years, the sentence is modified to three months simple imprisonment instead of six months.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Secs.397/401 CrPC) against concurrent conviction under Secs.337 and 304-A IPC: the petitioner, driver of an APSRTC bus, was alleged to have driven rashly and negligently near Narasaraopet on 21.02.2010, dashing a motorcycle from behind and killing the pillion rider. Held, dismissing the challenge to conviction: the testimony of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.8 established rash and negligent driving, corroborated by medical evidence that the deceased was run over by the bus wheel; the evidence of PW.7 (bus conductor), who did not see how the accident occurred, was not relevant. The Single Judge decision in Crl.R.C. No.1602 of 2007 (rear-end collision by itself does not prove rash or negligent driving) was held factually distinguishable because here eyewitnesses categorically deposed to negligence. However, considering that about 16 years had elapsed since the incident and the petitioner was now about 50 years old, the sentence was reduced from six months to three months simple imprisonment; the suspension of sentence was vacated and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within eight weeks, failing which a Non-Bailable Warrant could issue. Revision disposed of.

[3521]

APHC010000952025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 10/2025

Between:

P. MANJUNATHA,, S/O. PALLEKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. MOGALAPALLI VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, . REP., BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATI

SMT PRIYANKA, W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7/260, FLAT NO- D4, BASAVAIAH COMPLEX, MALLESWAR ROAD ANANTAPURAMU TOWN AND DISTRICT.

M PRATHIK REDDY, S/O MANJUNATHA AGED 10 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7/260, FLAT NO-D4, BASAVAIAH COMPLEX, MALLESWAR ROAD, ANANTAPURAMU TOWN AND DISTRICT. MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN-RESPONENT NO.2

M PRASOON REDDY, S/O MANJUNATHA AGED 8 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7/260, FLAT NO-D4, BASAVAIAH COMPLEX, MALLESWAR ROAD, ANANTAPURAMU TOWN AND DISTRICT. MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN-RESPONENT NO.2

...RESPONDENT(S):

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to

2

call for records and set aside the Order dated 16-10-2024 in F.C.O.P. No.233 of 2021, on the file of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court -cum- VII Additional District Court, Anantapuramu and / or pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings arising out of orders dated 16-10-2024 in F.C.O.P. No.233 of 2021, on the file of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court -cum- VII Additional District Court, Anantapuramu and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2.K NARSI REDDY

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 10/2015

ORDER :

The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against order of conviction passed by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet for the offence punishable under section 337, 304-A of Indian penal Code, 1860¹ (for brevity, the I.P.C) which was confirmed by the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

Factual Matrix of the case :

Petitioner being a driver of A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-2983, on 21.02.2010 at about 9.30 pm., drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding towards Mallamma Centre near A.P.SR.T.C bus stand and when getting down over bridge, having lost control over the vehicle, hit motorcycle bearing No.AP-07-AM-9919, driven by PW.1 along with his daughter (deceased) as a pillion rider, resulting thereof, deceased died on spot. A crime case was registered on the basis of report of PW.1. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet.

During Trial, prosecution has produced as many as eleven (11) witnesses. Several documents were marked. After hearing parties, learned Trial Court has found petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under section 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860² (for brevity, the I.P.C) and

1The I.P.C, 1860

2The I.P.C, 1860

4

sentenced him to undergo suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months. The said order was confirmed by learned Appellate Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case.

Submissions of the petitioner :

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of Section 304-A of the I.P.C. have not been proved by the prosecution. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses, as they are relatives of the deceased and PW.1. He also submits that though the accident is alleged to have occurred in a populated area, no independent witnesses have been examined. It is further submitted that PW.7, who is the conductor of the bus, has not seen how the accident occurred. It is argued that although the speed of the bus was mentioned by the prosecution witnesses, but speed is not a material fact to establish the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. He further submits that after the accident, the petitioner as well as the conductor took proper care to send the injured to the hospital. Such conduct shows that there was no culpable state of mind on the part of the petitioner to commit the offence. The accident may have happened, but the petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner is aged more than 40 years and prays for a lenient view. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5

Submissions of the State:

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has successfully bring home the charge against the petitioner. The evidence goes to show that when the petitioner, being the driver of an R.T.C. bus, was proceeding towards Mallamma Center, Narasaraopet, and was getting down from a bridge, where the road was 47 feet wide, he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a motorcycle from behind. He further submits that if the petitioner had taken proper care while getting down the bridge, the accident could have been avoided. He also submits that the prosecution witnesses, including injured PW.1 and other eyewitnesses, have successfully proved the prosecution case, and there is corroboration in the evidence of each and every witness. Accordingly, the conviction against the petitioner is maintainable.

He further submits that the evidence as well as the scene observation

report show that due to the impact, the rear right of the motorcycle was damaged, and the deceased died as the left wheel of the bus ran over the victim girl. It is also shown that after the accident, the deceased was dragged for about 20 feet, which itself establishes that the petitioner was not careful

and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, the prosecution has successfully bring home the charge against the petitioner,

6

and there is no evidence on behalf of the defence to show that the petitioner was not negligent. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case has no merits.

Observation of this Court :

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner was charged under Sections 337 and 304-A of the I.P.C. To prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven (11) witnesses. PW.7, who is the conductor of the bus, admitted the occurrence of the accident but failed to state how the accident happened. It appears that PW.7 was inside the bus and engaged in collecting tickets; thus, it was not possible for PW.7 to observe the position of the vehicles and victim outside the bus. Moreover, it was not possible for PW.7 to assess the manner in which the accident occurred; therefore, the evidence of PW.7 is not very relevant to establish the offence of rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner.

Other witnesses, including PW.1, PW.2, and PW.8, have categorically stated that the petitioner, being the driver of the bus, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed PW.1’s motorcycle from behind. If we properly assess the evidence on record, it appears that the bus was getting a slope of the bridge while PW.1 was riding the motorcycle in front of the bus. The bus driver had every opportunity to notice the motorcycle and control the speed of the vehicle; however, the petitioner dashed the motorcycle from behind. The medical evidence also supports that the death was caused due to the victim being run over by the wheel of the bus.

7

Considering the same, it appears that the prosecution has justifiably proved the offences against the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that speed is not a relevant factor to assess the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C.

In support of his contention, he cited a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 1602 of 2007. It appears in cited case that in the absence of any prosecution witness indicating how the accident occurred, accordingly, bench has observed mere fact of dashing from behind by a bus does not by itself prove rash and negligent driving. However, in the present case, the prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed that the driver of the bus, i.e., the petitioner, was negligent in driving the vehicle. Thus, the law laid down by this Court in the cited case is factually different and is distinguishable.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the material on record, as well as the observations of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, it appears that the Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court. It further appears that the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in confirming the order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner. Accordingly, I find no justification to entertain the present petition.

8

However, considering the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2010 and that about 16 years have already elapsed, and further considering that the petitioner is now aged about 50 years, in the attendant facts and circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby modified to three (03) months instead of six (06) months.

With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during the pendency of the Criminal Revision Case is hereby vacated.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, within eight (08) weeks from the date of this order to serve out the remaining sentence. In default, the learned Trial Court shall issue appropriate orders, including issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant, to secure compliance with this order.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

Dated:04.05.2026. SSA