Partly allowed

Shaik Jaleel, v. Stae of A.P.

Telangana HC1 Apr 2014CRLRC/1552/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner for rash and negligent driving causing injuries under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. However, the Court held that the one-month imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner should be treated as punishment, reducing both the sentence term and the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed but sentence reduced to period already undergone and fine reduced.

Shaik Jaleel, Vs Stae of A.P. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1552 OF 2006 Dated 1-4-2014

Between:

Shaik Jaleel.

..Petitioner.

And:

State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public . Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶7

Respondents.

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1552 OF 2006 ORDER:

¶9

This revision is against judgment dated 25-8-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2005 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad whereunder judgment dated 17-5-2005 in C.C.No.823 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Luxettipet is confirmed.

¶10

2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:

¶11

On 31-5-2000, the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 along with other passengers were traveling in an auto bearing No.AP-1-U-2504 from Dandepalli to Luxettipet and when the auto reached near Cherkugudem, the driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, auto turned turtle, resulting injuries to P.Ws.2 and 3 and death of Srinivas and on a report from P.W.1, police registered a case in Crime No.72 of 2000 and investigation revealed that accused is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 I.P.C. On these allegations, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and marked thirteen documents and no witness is examined and no document

¶12

is marked on behalf of defence. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Adilabad and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence.

¶13

3. Heard both sides.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution have not stated about the rash and negligent act of the revision petitioner and without that, he is convicted for the offences under Sections 337 and 304 A I.P.C. It is further contended that mere driving of a vehicle at high speed is not sufficient to attract the ingredients of section 304-A I.P.C. and prosecution must prove rash and negligent act also and therefore, both the courts have erred in considering these aspects and both the judgments are liable to be set aside.

¶15

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidence and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.

¶16

6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper? 7. POINT:

¶17

According to prosecution, on 31-5-2000 while the deceased and P.Ws.2 and 3 were traveling in the auto of revision petitioner, they met with an accident. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the injured

¶18

persons. Both P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed in their evidence that driver of the auto drove the vehicle at high speed and due to that, the auto turned turtle and they received injuries. They also deposed that other inmates of the auto have also received injuries. P.W.1 the de facto complainant who lodged Ex.P.1 report deposed that at about 8 A.M., on 31-5-2000, he received information about the accident, on that, he rushed to the scene of offence and found his brother and mother along with other passengers with injuries and on that, he went to police station and lodged a report. P.W.4 is an eye witness. He deposed that on the date of accident, the accused drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, which resulted turtle of the auto. P.Ws.5 to 7 who are also injured who deposed in the same lines as stated by P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.5 is the Inquest Panchayatdar. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer who conducted Post Mortem on the dead body of the deceased Srinivas and who also examined injured persons and issued Wound Certificates. P.W.11 is the Mediator for observation of scene of offence. P.W.12 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer. Both trial court and appellate court have scrutinized the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 13 and rightly appreciated their evidence for convicting the revision petitioner. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by the trial court or by the appellate court.

¶19

8. On a scrutiny of material, I am of the view that both trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below.

¶20

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner has already suffered on account of this case and he was in jail for about one month and the same may be treated as punishment for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. besides

¶21

fine amount.

¶22

10. Considering the nature of offences and plea of the accused, I feel that the request of advocate for revision petitioner can be accepted.

¶23

11. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction for the offence under Sections 304-A I.P.C. and 337 I.P.C. but the sentence is reduced to period already undergone besides fine amount.

¶24

12. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶25

_______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI

¶26

KUMAR

¶27

Dated 1-4-2014. Dvs.

¶28

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶29

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1552 OF 2006

¶30

Dated 1-4-2014

¶31

Dvs

Shaik Jaleel, v. Stae of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Jaleel, v. Stae 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

Sri Pericherla Vijaya Anand Kumar , Kumar, Vs Smt Pericherla Satya (Gokaraju)

Poluri Ranga Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bala Ananthamma, Vs Balaji Chandrasekhar Babu, , Balaji Chandrasekhar Chowdary

Ganduri Shankar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Darshnam Lalitha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh