High Court reduced the term of simple imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner in a negligence case, while maintaining the fine component.
Sentence of simple imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; petitioner released unless required for other crime.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.102 of 2011 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 13.01.2011, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Crl.A.No.23 of 2008, wherein and whereby the judgment, dated 31.01.2008, passed in C.C.No.211 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, and also to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPCwas confirmed.
The succinct facts of the prosecution case are that the on 17.04.2006, at about 5 am., the accused being driver of the bus bearing No.KA-36-3517, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed the deceasedKeshannagari Gudla Ramanna while he was coming from his field towards Benigeri Village, as a result, he died on the spot. Later, on a complaint given by P.W-2 a case was registered against the accused, investigation was taken up, during which, inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased and after receipt of post-mortem examination certificate and the
report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the charge sheet was filed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material papers on record.
When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for about two weeks.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 13.01.0211 and immediately, the petitioner was taken into custody, and as on today, the petitioner suffered a sentence of about two weeks. In those circumstances, as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused by both the Courts below is only four months and the petitioner had already suffered the sentence for quite some period, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken.
Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of four months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and the sentence of simple imprisonment of one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, which were ordered to be run concurrently, imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine.
Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. As the petitioner is in jail, the Office is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the jail authorities and the jail authorities shall release the petitioner forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other crime.
___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
25th January 2011 dr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should modify the period of simple imprisonment sentenced to the accused in a case under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner-accused
State
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
