Young аппellant challenged conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and mischief by motor vehicle. Court reduced rigorous imprisonment to time already served but upheld fine due to accidental nature of offence.
Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained.
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.110 of 2011 JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein was tried by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram in C.C.No.39 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 429 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-15 were exhibited. On behalf of the accused, none was examined nor any documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, by his judgment, dated, 25.06.2009, found the accused guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and he was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 429 IPC. The said judgment was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2009 before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, who by his judgment, dated 13.01.2011, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner-accused by the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the intervening night of 28/29-11-2007, a lorry bearing No.AP 31 Y
5198 with load of rice bags driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed, without blowing horn, came from Jaggampeta side and dashed the bullock cart which was stopped on the right side on Jaggampeta-Ramavaram National Highway No.5, due to which the deceased who was standing on the road talking with the driver of another lorry for loading the goods, fell down on the ground, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same on the way to the hospital. In this connection, the case was registered and investigated into and later, the charge sheet was filed against the accused.
When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the accused has been in jail for ten days. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court looked into the record. It is clear that the petitioner was taken into custody on 13.01.2011, i.e., on the date of pronouncement of the impugned judgment and as of today, he is in jail for about 12 days. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken.
Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC 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 exercise its discretionary power to modify the sentence of imprisonment in a revisional case where the petitioner has already undergone the entire period of rigorous impr
2 provisions across 1 enactments
ACCUSED
STATE
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
