Dismissed

Mohd. Siddiq, v. State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC13 Mar 2012CRLRC/1672/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision concerning the maintenance of a conviction for rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A IPC resulting in death. The High Court found no ground to interfere with the lower courts' findings, dismissing the revision and directing execution of the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; trial court directed to execute the sentence.

Mohd. Siddiq, Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Public… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1672 of 2004

¶3

Date: March 13, 2012

¶4

Between: Mohd. Siddiq … Petitioner/ And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. … Respondent

¶5

Accused

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1672 of 2004

¶9

JUDGMENT:

¶10

The petitioner was tried on a charge under Section 304-A IPC in C.C. No.385 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (trial court). The said court after considering the evidence let in by the prosecution by its judgment dated 30^th September 2002 convicted the petitioner of the said charge and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The petitioner’s appeal i.e., Crl.A. No.416 of 2002 against the above conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court was dismissed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur (appellate court). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with

¶11

this revision.

¶12

2. The sum and substance of the charge brought against the petitioner is that on 28^th August 1999 in the evening at about 7.45 p.m. the petitioner drove his auto rickshaw AP 16W 6903 in a rash and negligent manner on the main road near Mangalagiri bus stand and that while trying to overtake an APSRTC bus stationed there, he applied sudden brakes on seeing another APSRTC bus coming in the opposite direction and as a result the auto rickshaw turned turtle and one passenger in the auto rickshaw suffered serious injuries and subsequently died.

¶13

3. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 9 and also exhibited 9 documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P-9 in support of its case, whereas the petitioner did not lead any evidence in support of his defence.

¶14

4. The trial court considered the evidence elaborately and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The appellate court also having considered the evidence once again agreed with the trial court.

¶15

5. Sri C. Upender, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised various contentions and pointed out that the deceased was paternal uncle of P.W.1 Sanka Murali Krishna, who is examined as an eye-witness, and

¶16

consequently the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon because of his relationship with the deceased. The version of P.W.1 is that himself and the deceased were travelling in the auto rickshaw on that evening and therefore he spoke about the accident and the injuries to his paternal uncle which resulted in his death. The other details have been discussed by the trial court and the appellate court. A perusal of his evidence would also show that nothing has been elicited from him to doubt his version that the petitioner was the driver of the auto rickshaw and he was present at the place of incident when it occurred.

¶17

6. Regarding the cause of accident P.W.1 in his evidence clearly stated that the petitioner was driving the auto rickshaw in a high speed and he tried negligently to overtake the stationary RTC bus without looking at the other traffic by rashly swerving it on the road for overtaking and on seeing another bus coming in the opposite direction he could not control his auto rickshaw and that resulted in the accident. This evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows rash driving on the part of the petitioner and his mere relationship with the deceased, is therefore, not a ground by itself to reject his evidence.

¶18

7. In the above circumstances, it can be said that the findings recorded by the trial court regarding the guilt of the petitioner which are confirmed by the appellate court

¶19

can be said to be based on evidence and consequently it can be said that this is not a case where both the courts below have recorded findings which are against evidence. Nothing has also been brought to my notice to conclude that the judgment of the appellate court suffers from any other infirmity or illegality. Even with regard to sentences imposed by the trial court and confirmed in appeal they having regard to the nature of the crime, cannot be said to be harsh.

¶20

8. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground to interfere in this matter and this revision is accordingly dismissed. The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentences.

¶21

______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J.

¶22

Date: March 13, 2012. BSB

¶23

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶24

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1672 of 2004

¶25

Date: March 13, 2012

¶26

BSB

Mohd. Siddiq, v. State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Siddiq, v. State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

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

V.Marthand Goud Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by Public Prosecutor

P. Uma Maheswar, Vs State, through Govt. of India

Kotipalli Mallikarjuna Rao Vs The State Rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Mandala Balraj, Vs The State of a.P., through Sho.

Chennuboyina Gangaiah, Vs The State Sho., Kanigiri P.S.

Dulla Venugopal, Vs Aradyula Pothuraju , Sivarama Raju