Dismissed

Bnada Buchaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Feb 2014CRLRC/699/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged conviction under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC for a traffic accident causing death. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the imprisonment sentence from one year to six months for the offense under Section 304-A IPC.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced from one year to six months imprisonment for Section 304-A IPC.

Bnada Buchaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.699 of 2007

¶3

Date: February 25, 2014

¶4

Between: Banda Buchaiah … Petitioner/ and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. … Respondent

¶5

Accused

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.699 of 2007

¶9

J U D G M E N T:

¶10

This revision is against judgment dated 30.05.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.112 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, whereunder judgment dated 04.07.2005 in C.C. No.411 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, was confirmed.

¶11

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2003 while Vangala Ravinder Reddy, Guntuka Nagi Reddy along with B. Srinivasa Rao and Karamsetti Bhanu Murthy were returning from Hyderabad to Miryalaguda in a car bearing No.AP 13 A 1908, they reached outskirts o f Arjalabavi Village at about 2.00 hours i.e., early hours of 21.10.2003. At that time a lorry bearing No.AP 28 V 0229 came in opposite direction with cement load in a rash and negligent manner

¶12

and dashed the car due to which Bavisetty Srinivas Rao and Karamsetti Bhanu Murthy, who sustained fatal injuries, died on the spot and Vangala Ravinder Reddy and Guntuka Nagi Reddy sustained fracture injuries. On a report from P.W.1, police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the accused i.e., revision petitioner herein for offences under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC.

¶13

3. During trial 14 witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked on behalf of prosecution. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of accused.

¶14

4. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 338 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions, Nalgonda, and I Additional District and Sessions Judge, on re-appraisal of evidence confirmed conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.

¶15

5. Heard both sides.

¶16

6. Main contention of the advocate for revision petitioner is that both P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the accused only during trial in the Court and investigating officer has not conducted any test identification parade. He further submitted that both these witnesses have not stated anything in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements before the investigating officer about lorry driver after getting down from the lorry came towards them and later went away and this part of omission was not considered by the courts below. He submitted that as there is no legal evidence for the identity of the revision petitioner, benefit of doubt should be

¶17

extended to him.

¶18

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly identified the revision petitioner in the Court during trial and that is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. He further submitted that omission pointed out by the advocate for revision petitioner was considered and answered by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 8. 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?

¶19

9. Point:

¶20

According to prosecution, the accident was on the intervening night of 20/21.10.2003 wherein lorry bearing No.AP 28 V 0229 dashed a car bearing No.AP 13 A 1908 in which both the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 were travelling. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 are injured and P.W.1 is complainant also. Both of them have deposed as to the manner in which the accident occurred and they further stated that accused got down from the lorry and approached towards them and thereafter left the place. Now the objection of the revision petitioner is that this part of evidence is not there in 161 Cr.P.C. statements of these two witnesses recorded by the investigating officer. This objection was raised before the trial Court and trial Court after relying on a decision of this Court negatived the objection and held that it is not a material omission. I do not find any wrong in the finding of the trial Court with regard to evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly considered the evidence on record and I do not find any wrong in the findings of the trial Court and appellate Court for convicting the revision petitioner.

¶21

10. It is clear from the evidence on record that the accident was

¶22

occurred only due to rash and negligent act of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 28 V 0229. It is not the case of the revision petitioner during cross-examination of the witnesses that he was not the driver of the crime vehicle. Considering all these aspects, I am of the considered view that both the courts rightly convicted the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC and I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.

¶23

11. Now, coming to the sentence. Revision petitioner is sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 338 IPC. Advocate for the revision petitioner submitted that the offence was about more than 10 years back and the revision petitioner has got wife and children and he is the only breadwinner of the family.

¶24

12. Taking the facts of the case and representation of the counsel for the revision petitioner, I feel that the imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC can be reduced to six months. With this modification, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

13. For the reasons stated above criminal revision case is dismissed confirming the conviction but reducing the sentence of one year imprisonment to six months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

¶26

14. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of the accused to undergo unexpired portion of sentence if any.

¶27

__________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J

¶28

Date: February 25, 2014. BSB

¶29

91 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶30

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.699 of 2007

¶31

Date: February 25, 2014

¶32

BSB

Bnada Buchaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bnada Buchaiah, 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

Regional Director, Vs Sri Minoo R.Shroff, (a 2)

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

K. Rammohan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Juvvala Satya Appa Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

N. R. Abraham, Vs Smt. Mercy Beena

Danduprolu Srinivasa Rao Vs Danduprolu Bharathi Durga and 2 Otehrs