Partly allowed

N.Naveen, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Telangana HC25 Oct 2021CRLRC/1168/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1168 of 2015, while confirming the accused's conviction under Section 304-A IPC for causing a child's death due to rash driving, modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused after nine years of litigation.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone by the accused; the fine remains payable.

N.Naveen, Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner^{/ Accusedwas directd to be releasedon bail by the} Order of the High^{Courtdated01-07-2015made in CTI RCMP'No'} 1859 of 2015^{in Crl R-C.No1 168of 2015}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISIO^{N CASENO: 1168 OF 2015}

¶7

Criminal Revision Case^{filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. againstthe} Judgment dated^{'16-06-2015 made in crl.A.No.83 of 2013 on the file of the courtof} the Additional District and^{SessionsJudge, Vikarabad, Ranga ReddyDistrict,} preferred against the Judgment^{passed in c.c.No.326 of 2008 dated 01-07-2013on} the file of the court of the^{Judicial Magistrateof First class at chevella,Ranga} Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Telugu Gopal, S/o.^{Ramulu, ng9!} -33 years, . O^cc. . LorJy^ Driver, R'/o Devrinigadda Village, Shabad^{Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict' TS}

¶10

...Petitioner / Appellant / Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangart^{A Rep by its Public Prosecu{or, High.Courtof} Judicature at Hydeiabad^{(for'the'Stateof Telang-anaand AndhraPradesh)} through P.S C6evella. Rdnga^{Reddy District, TS}

¶13

...Respondent / Respondent /^Complainant

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent

¶16

Sri E Ganesh

¶17

Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court made the following^Order:

¶19

¶20

THE HON,BLE SRI^{JUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL^{REVISIOT{CASE No.1168 of2015}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal^{Revision Case is frled by the revision} petitioner/accused^{aggrieved bythe judgmentdated} 16.06.2015 in Crl'A.No.83^{of 2013 passed by learned} Additional District^{and SessionsJudge,Vikarabad'Ranga} Reddy District^{(for short, "the appellateCourt"), confirming} the^{judgr(entdated 01.07'2013 in CC'No'326 of 2OO8} passed by the learned^{JudicialMagistrateof First Class' at} Chevella, Ranga^{Reddy District(for short, "the trial Court")'}

¶23

Heard learned counsel^{for therevlslon} petilioner/ accused^{arrd learned Assistant Public Prosecutor} appearing for^{respondent-State. Perused the record'}

¶24

The brief^{facts of the case are thaton} 25.09.2008 at^{about Ol:30 p.m., while the deceased Master} Kawagudem Mahender^{Reddy, was returning from his} school on his^{bicycle to Kesaram Village, when he reached} Andhra Bank,^{Chevella,the driver of a lorry tipper bearing} No.AP-29-TA-733 drove^{the same in rash and negligent} manner and dashed^{him, due to which he fell down from}

¶25

¶26

bicycle and crushed under the rear wheels of the lorry and died on the spot. Basing on the complaint grven by p.W. l, a case in Cr.No.223/2O0g was registered for the offence punishable under Section 304_A of IpC against the accused. Later, on completion of investigation, tJ.e police frled charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No .326 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella.

¶27

During the course of trial, pWs.l to 6 were examined and Exs.pl to p6 were marked. In defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary erridence available on record, vide judgment dated 01.07.2008 in C.C.No.326 of 2OO8 conrricted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304_A of IpC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under Sectiron 3O4-A of IpC and to pay hne of Rs. 1,OOO/_ (rupees one thousand only) arrd in default, to suffer simple 'Ll-imprisonment for l5 (fifteen) days

¶28

¶29

Aggrieved by the said^judgment dated 01.07.2013ⁱⁿ C.C.No.326 of 20O8, the petitioner/accused^preferred Crl.A.No.83 of 2013 on the file of learned^{District and} Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga^{Reddy District.After} hearing the learned counsel for the^{respectiveparties and} on consideration of oral and documentary^evidence available on record, the appellate Court^{vide judgment} dated 16.06.2015 in Crl.A.No.83 of 2013, dismissed^the appeal by confirming the conviction and^{sentence dated} 01.07.2013 in C.C.No.326 of 2OO8^{passed by the trial} Court against the accused for the offence^{punishable under} Section 304-4 of IPC. Assailing the sarne, the^revision petitioner/ accused has filed the present Crimrnal Revision Case.

¶30

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for^the re'rision petitioner/accused contended that both the Courts below erred in convicting the revision^{petitioner/accused} for the offence punishable under Sections^3O4-A of^{IPC in} the absence of any cogent and reliable^evidence. He further contended that both the Courts below ought^to have seen that the evidence on record is not sufficient to

¶31

¶32

¶33

convict the revision petitioner under Sections 304_4 of IpC as tlee evidence on record consists contradictions and omissions. He further contended that both the Courts below ought to have seen that only interested witnesses were examined and no independent witness was examined to prove the guilt of the accused.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Assistant public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, after appreciating the oral and documentar5r evidence, found the revision petitioner/accused guitty for the offences punishable under Section 3O4-A IPC, He further submits that it is an undisputed fact that the accused i.e., driver of Tipper lorry bearing No.AP-29-TA-733 caused the accident, which took away the precious life of the innocent children due to his rash and negligent driving and it is proved beyond doubt that the accused is responsible for the death of children, hence, a lenient view cannot be taken on the revision petitioner/accused and sought for dismissa.l of the Criminal Revision Case.

¶35

¶36

¶37

Having regard to the facts^{and circumstancesof the} case, as the revision^{petitioner/accused sufferedmental} agony and hardship during^{the course of litigationbefore} the trial Court^{as well as the appellate Court and, as rightly} contended by the^{learned counsel for the revision} petitioner/ accused, nine long^{years have alreadybeen} elapsed from the date of filing^{of this Revision, this Courtis} inclined to take a lenient^{view on therevision} petitioner/ accused and modify the^{sentenceimposed by} the appellate Court, while^{confirmingthe convictionand} sentence imposed against^{the revision petitioner/accused} for the offence^punishable under^{Section3O4-Aof lPC.}

¶38

g. However, keeping in view of^{the pendency of the} matter and in view that the^{revisiohpetitioner/accused} suffered mental agony and hardship^{during the courseof} litigation before the trial Court^{as well as the appellate} Court and as nine Iong years^{havea-lreadybeen elapsed} from the date of filing of this^{Revision,this Court is} inclined to take a lenient^{view and while confirming the} conviction against petitioner/accused^{for theoffence} punishable under Section 304-4 of^I PC,^{modify the}

¶39

¶40

.-i

¶41

sentence imposed by the appellate court to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused.

¶42

In the result, while confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IpC, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the reyision petitioner/accused by the appellate Court is modified reducing the same to that of the period, already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused. However, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court, shall remain same, if not paid. Except the above said modification, in all other aspects this revision is dismissed.

¶43

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall also star.rd

¶44

dismissed.

¶45

Sd,. I. NAGA^LAKSHMI D TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/

¶46

TION OFFICER

¶47

To, 1 The Additional^{Districtand sessionsJudge,Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District} (with records,^{if anY)}

¶48

2 The Judicial^{Magistrate of First Classat Chevella'Ranga ReddyDistrict} 3 The Station^{HouseOfficer, Chevella PS' Rarrga Reddy District}

¶49

4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

¶50

"/5 One CC to Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

¶52

6 Two CD Copies

Vtugh

HIGH COURT

DATED:1511012024

\ \

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1168 of 2015

¶60

-:a-- -
y':i ,,)'- -. - t:: :t' l +
I
9Z0Z Bji z z c
)i! (:,
Jf Vls --- r '' I a)
-*::'-

¶61

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶62

c#a q Yt{$t

N.Naveen, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Naveen, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

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

Are Srinivas and 16 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Vajrala. Therojamma and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mirkuri Bhumanna and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Sri.S. Ravi Vs Sri. B. Vikas Kumar

Mr.Vejju Balaji Vs State of Telangana and another

Sri.Chowdavarapu Nageshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana