Partly allowed

S.Venkatasudharshan Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC8 Jul 2013CRLRC/704/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death, the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction but reduced the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone. The Court imposed a ₹30,000 fine payable to the victims' families, releasing the petitioner from default imprisonment upon payment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine of ₹30,000 imposed payable to deceased family members by 31.08.2013.

S.Venkatasudharshan Reddy, Vs The State of A.P. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.704 of 2006 JUDGMENT

¶2

This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 10.04.2006, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor in Crl.A.No.115 of 2002 confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor vide judgment dated 22.04.2002 in C.C.No.77 of 1999.

¶3

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: On 19.03.1999 at 4.00 PM., while the accused being the driver of jeep bearing No.AHK 4154 was proceeding on ChittoorTirupati road, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a boy, by name Prudvi, at the first instance and later against one woman, by name Sakku, near the temple of Kondandaramulu, killing them on the spot. On a complaint given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.16 of 1999 under Section 304-A IPC and under Sections 134(A) and (B) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the accused. On completion of investigation, the police concerned laid the charge sheet.

¶4

3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of defence.

¶5

4. The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 134(A)(B) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Section 304-A IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.250/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the said offences; and further convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of RS.500/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Questioning the said conviction and the sentence, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.115 of 2002 and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present revision.

¶6

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

¶7

6. From the record, it appears that the petitioner was in jail for a substantial period. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the lower appellate Court. But however, in view of the

¶8

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period and also the lapse of 14 years period from the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner/accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) before the trial Court on or before 31.08.2013, in default he shall undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. On such payment, the entire amount shall be paid to the family members of two deceased persons equally, as compensation. If the fine amount is paid after the stipulated time and while the petitioner is undergoing the default sentence, he shall be released.

¶9

7. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

_____________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 8^th July, 2013 sj

S.Venkatasudharshan Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Venkatasudharshan Reddy, 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

Koppaka Sanjeevarao (A1) Vs The State of A.P.

K.Sampathkumar, Vs The State ,through S.H.O P.S., Ramadugum

Gurram Koti Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Station House Officer

Chamala Gowri Sankara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sesetti Ramachandra Rao (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Nagavasa Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of A.P.