Dismissed

Brahmanapalle Siddalinga Mandadi v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC2 Jan 2012CRLRC/538/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision involved an accused driver convicted for rash and negligent driving causing injury and death of bullocks. The revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence, arguing about fog and lack of specific evidence of negligence. The court upheld the lower courts' findings and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed upholding the conviction and sentence.

Brahmanapalle Siddalinga Mandadi Vs State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.538 OF 2005

¶3

Dated: 03-01-2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Brahmanapalle Siddalinga Mandadi …Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Respondent

¶6

This Court made the following:

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.538 OF 2005

¶9

ORDER:-

¶10

The petitioner in this revision is the accused in C.C.No.22 of

¶11

2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler. At the relevant time, the accused was a driver in the service of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and was working in Piler Depot of the said Corporation.

¶12

2. The substance of the accusation against the accused is that on 03.01.2000 in the early morning he was driving the bus of the said Corporation bearing No.AP 9Z 3491 of Piler depot and at about 6.30 a.m. he drove the said bus in a rash or negligent manner near Naramakula Voddi Palle village on Piler-K.V.Palle road and hit a bullock cart, which was going ahead of his bus. It is stated that in the resultant accident, P.Ws.1 to 3, who were going in the bullock cart suffered injuries and the two bullocks of the cart also died and the prosecution version is that the bullock cart and bullocks belonged to P.W.1. Subsequently, a case was registered and the concerned police chargesheeted the petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 337,338,427 and 429 IPC read with Section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶13

3. The trial Court relying upon the evidence let in by the prosecution consisting of the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 documents found the petitioner-accused guilty and convicted him for the offences under Sections 338 and 429 IPC and sentenced him to fine of Rs.1,000/- on the first count and fine of Rs.5,000/- on the second count besides imposing default clause prison sentences for non-payment of fines. However, it acquitted him of the offence under Section 427 IPC and also other offences, but held him guilty for the offence under Section 337 IPC but did not impose any separate sentence as sentence was already imposed under Section 338 IPC. The prosecution did not prefer any appeal questioning the acquittals rendered by the trial Court.

¶14

4. The petitioner-accused carried the matter in appeal being

¶15

Crl.A.No.93 of 2002 questioning the above convictions and sentences, but the appellate Court i.e. III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 5.3.2003. It is questioning that judgment the present revision is filed by the accused.

¶16

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioneraccused is that on the date of occurrence, there was fog in the early morning and the bullocks of P.W.1’s cart themselves on seeing the lights of the bus went astray resulting in accident and that he was not negligent on that aspect. In fact, suggestions were made to P.Ws.1 to 3 with the above line of defence, but they denied and in fact, they also denied the version of the petitioner-accused that the accident occurred at 5.30 a.m. and they clearly stated that it was only at about 6.30 a.m. This apart, it should be noted that bullocks getting frightened due to head lights of the petitioner’s bus does not arise as it hit the cart from behind. Both the courts below considered this aspect and negatived the above defence of the accused and nothing is brought to my notice to differ with their conclusions on evidence. Thus the defence of the accused based on fog is rejected.

¶17

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that P.Ws.1 to 3 did not specifically state that the rash or negligent driving on the part of the petitioner-accused was responsible for the accident and therefore, that itself is a ground for acquittal. There is no force in this contention also. It may be noted that P.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence clearly stated that the bus came in a high speed and hit the bullock cart but they did not use the word ‘rashly’ or ‘negligently’ to describe the driving of the petitioner. However, in the cross-examination, suggestions were made to them and in those suggestions they denied that the accident was not due to rash or negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. Hence the above answers show that all the witnesses gave the cause of accident as rash driving on the part of the petitioner. Thus the above contention also cannot be accepted.

¶18

7. Then coming to sentences, it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner-accused that he is an employee in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and therefore, he may be let off with a lesser fine or even under Probation of Offenders Act. It should be noted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court were lenient in letting off the petitioner-accused with only sentences of fine and it is seen that the prosecution has not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of sentences. The matter is of 2005. In the above circumstances, having regard to the sentences of fine imposed by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that no further lenience need be shown to the petitioner-accused.

¶19

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶20

________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J JANUARY 02, 2012 Tsr

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶22

CRL.A.No.2605 OF 2004

Brahmanapalle Siddalinga Mandadi v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmanapalle Siddalinga Mandadi v. 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

Parripati Umapathi Kumar Vs The State

Md. Ameeruddin, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Balaji Medical Agencies Vs The State

Sri Mandalapadu Vijaya Bhaskar, Vs Smt. Ch.Vijaya Kumari

Dr.K.Venkat Rao, Vs P.Naga Bushanam Rao

Thadi Prasad Vs Dhanista Chit Funds