Partly allowed

Shaik Babu, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC24 Dec 2012CRLRC/350/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision considered the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 304-A IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction but remarked that the appellant had spent a considerable period in prison. Consequently, the sentence of imprisonment was remitted to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of imprisonment remitted to period already undergone; additional fine of Rs.7,500/ imposed; total fine Rs.8,500/-.

Shaik Babu, Vs The State of A.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.350 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment, dated 13.2.2006 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, in Crl.A.No.156 of 2003.

¶5

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶6

On 20.6.2002 at about 4 p.m., while the deceased-Gorikapudi Bhaskara Rao along with P.Ws.1 and 2 was coming on the left side of the road towards Cherukupalli village on some work and when he reached near Sri Lakshmi Rice Mill, Ponnapalli village, a mini lorry bearing No.AP 7 V 4079 driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in a private hospital. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle and the learned Magistrate took the same on file as C.C.No.49 of 2002.

¶7

During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

¶8

On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused filed appeal viz., Crl.A.No.156 of 2003 before the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) , Guntur, at Tenali. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the

¶9

judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the petitioner-accused filed the present revision.

¶10

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶11

The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly submitted that it is not a fit case for interference, but however, in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in prison for a considerable period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

¶12

In the circumstances of the case and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below as to the guilt of the petitioneraccused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the said offence. But however, in view of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-accused was in prison for a considerable period, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.

¶13

In the result, the conviction recorded by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below for the said offence is reduced to that of the period already undergone while directing the petitioner-accused to pay another sum of Rs.7,500/- as fine in addition to the amount of fine imposed by the Courts below. In default of payment of the entire fine amount of Rs.8,500/- by the end of February, 2013 the petitioner-accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. If the additional fine amount imposed by this Court viz., Rs.7,500/- is paid, the same shall be given to the family of the deceased.

¶14

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand closed.

¶15

_____________ RAJA ELANGO, J

¶16

24^th December, 2012 Nn

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.350 of 2006

¶19

24.12.2012

¶20

Shaik Babu, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Babu, v. The State of A.P.

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

Gujjala Syam Prasad Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Myakala Laxma Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Krishak Bharathi Cooperative Ltd., Vs The State of A.P.

Kanneboina Laxmaiah, Vs Kanneboina Laxmi

K.Tulsi Eshwar Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Yampongu Yacob, Vs The State of A.P.