Dismissed

Surisetty Satya Prakash, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Apr 2014CRLRC/410/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision against sentences for rash and negligent driving causing death in a motor vehicle accident involving a tractor-trailer and a lorry. The revision was dismissed as no one appeared; the court affirmed the conviction and upheld the modified sentence.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below.

Surisetty Satya Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.410 of 2007

¶3

Date:16.04.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

Surisetty Satya Prakash

¶6

..... Petitioner.

¶7

AND

¶8

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

¶9

.....Respondent.

¶10

The Court made the following :

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶12

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.410 of 2007

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This revision is preferred against judgment dated 13-03-2007 in Crl.A.No.202/2004 on the file of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagarm whereunder judgment dated 09-12-2004 in C.C.No.525/2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagarm is confirmed by modifying the sentence.

¶15

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

¶16

On the intervening night of 15/16-4-2000, at about 11:00 P.M., P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5-K.Ademma, A.Sanyasamma, P.W.15, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.10, R. Laxmi and P.W.9 were proceeding to Krishnapuram village of Padmanabham Mandal in a tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-35-T-2595/2596 driven by P.W.1 and when they reached Bondapalli Village, revision petitioner being driver of lorry bearing No.AP-31-V-8743, while proceeding towards Koraput, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, without blowing horn, dashed against the trailer of the tractor, due to which, the trailer turtled, as a result, cleaner of the lorry died on the spot and the above referred persons sustained bleeding injuries. On the report of P.W.1, police registered Crime No.16/2000 and investigation revealed that the revision petitioner is liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 304-A, 338 & 337 IPC. During trial, 17 witnesses are examined and 28 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution.

¶17

No witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 & 337 IPC and sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 338 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 IPC.

¶18

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Session and the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram dismissed the appeal, but one year imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to nine months, without touching the fine amount. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.

¶19

3. When the matter is listed, no one is appeared on behalf of revision petitioner. Therefore, the matter is posted under the caption for orders on 10-04-2014 and from that day, on the request of the Advocate for revision petitioner posted to this day. Today none appeared, therefore, the mater is decided on the basis of the material available on record.

¶20

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses would clinchingly show that accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner and both the Courts have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

¶21

5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?

¶22

6. Point:- According to prosecution, on the intervening night on 15/16-04-2000, at about 11:00 P.M., the accused being driver of lorry bearing No.AP-31-V-8743, dashed a

¶23

tractor-trailer driven by P.W.1, which was carrying fourteen persons as passengers. Out of seventeen witnesses examined, P.Ws.1 to 10, 15 and three others sustained injuries, whereas cleaner of the lorry died on the spot. Here police registered First Information Report on the statement of P.W.1, who is the driver of the tractor and also injured. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 & 15 is consistant and corroborating with each other with regard to the way in which revision petitioner drove the lorry and caused accident. Their evidence is further supported and corroborated with the evidence of medical officer P.W.16 and other official witnesses on all material aspects. Though P.Ws.1 to 10 & 15 were cross-examined on behalf of revision petitioner, nothing could elicited from them to discredit their testimony. No doubt, P.Ws.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 & 15 are declared as hostile by the prosecution and they have not supported the prosecution case, but the fact remains that they sustained injuries in the accident and that they were along with the other injured persons in the tractor. Considering this evidence, both trial Court and appellate Court have convicted the revision petitioner and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by the trial Court or by the appellate Court. There are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is clinching and convincing with regard to rash and negligent act of the revision petitioner and also identity of the accused. On a scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate

¶24

Court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction.

¶25

7. Now coming to sentence, trial Court imposed one year imprisonment for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC and imposed fine for the other offences under Sections 338 & 337 IPC. Appellate Court reduced the sentence from one year imprisonment to nine months and on a scrutiny of the material, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellate Court has already taken a lenient view and that there are no grounds to interference with the sentence.

¶26

8. For these reasons, revision is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence.

¶27

9. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence.

¶28

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.

¶29

__________________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶30

Date:16.04.2014 mrb

Surisetty Satya Prakash, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surisetty Satya Prakash, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Nasreen Banu, Vs Smt. Firdous Fatima

V.K.Kumaravadivelu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.N.Ranganayakulu Vs The State of A.P.

Kolli Rama Mohana Reddy, Vs Konakalla Balarama Murthy

Glory Sampoorna Vs State of Ap., Through

Sri Bathina China Tataro, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh