Dismissed

Kolanti Ramesh v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC19 Nov 2021CRLRC/281/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner/challenger against a conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death under Section 304A IPC, holding that the impugned judgments were not perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment suspended pending disposal, NBW issued. Criminal Revision Case dismissed.

Kolanti Ramesh Vs the State of A.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

rN rHE HiGH^{.or*If9$"tJlt^B'^TEoF TELANGANA}

¶2

FRIDAY,^{THE NINETEENTHDAYOF NOVET\iIBER} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE^{Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶4

CRIMIN AL REVISIO^{N CASENO:281 0F 2007}

¶5

Criminal Revision^{Case under Sections 397 Riw 4Ol of Cr'PC againstthe} JudgmentmadeinCrl.AppealNo'll3of2006datedlSloll2ooTonthefileoftheCourt of the lll Additional^{sessions Judge, at Warangal,warangalDistrict preferredagainst} theordermadeinCCNo.Tgl2004dated15/09/2006onthefileoftheCourtofthel Additional Judicial^{First Classtt'4agistrate, at Warangal'}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kolanti Ramesh,^{S/o Koteshwar Rao, Driver Fl/o H.No.10-63, Enkur Village,Krishna} District --.,ET,T'.NERyAPPELLANT/^AGcusED AND

¶8

TheStateofA.P.,rep.byitsPublicProsecutor,HighCourtofA'P,Hyderabad'

¶9

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/^COMPLAINANT

¶10

CRLRCM P. NO: 372 OF²⁰⁰⁷

¶11

Petition under section 482 of^{cr.P.c praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of^{groundsof criminal Revisioncase, the High court maybe} pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence/conviction^{passedby the Hon'ble} lll Additional Sessions Judge, at Warangalⁱⁿ Crl.A.No.'l^{1312006 by its Judgment} dated 18.01 .2007 in convictinq the^petitioner to undergo Sl for a^{periodof six months} and to pay a fine of Rs.1,0OOl and in default to undergo Sl for a^period of one^year and cancelling the driving licence of the petitioner, for the offences U/s. 304-4 of lPC, and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above said Crl.R.C.,

¶12

For the Petitioner : SRI B.HARINATH RAO, Advocate

¶13

For the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶15

THE HOI I.BLE DT. JUsTIcE SHAMEEM AKTHlER CRIMII R I N SE No. 81 f2 7

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This Crimint I Revision Case, under Sections 397 r/w 40L of Code of Criminal >rocedure, 1973 (for short,,Cr.p.C,,), is filed by the petitioner/a :cused, challenging the judgment, dated 18.01.2007 pass( d in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2006 by the Iearned III Additio ral Sessions Judge, Warangal, wherein the lower appellate court c smissed the appear confirming the conviction recorded by the tr :l Court vide judgment dated 15.09.2006 passed in C.C.No.79 of 2C)4 by the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warar 3al, against the accused for the offence under Section 304A IPC lnd reduced the sentence of imprison ment from one year rigor rus imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment, whi e maintaining the sentence in all other respects"

¶18

Heard the le lrned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ State and^perused the record

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitio ner/accu sed would submit that PW.1 being fr ther of the deceased boy, who was 6^{years old,} did not take^prope r caution while crossing the road. Thr:re^wasno negligence on the part of the revision petitioner/accused. Without there being any e' idence to substantiate rash and negligent driving on the^part of the petitioner/accused, both the Courts belo,iv erred in convicting and ;entencing the^{petitioner/accused} for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. The lower appellate^Court

¶20

¶21

failed to properly appreciate the entire evidence on record and erroneously confirmed the conviction recorded against the petitioner/accused by the trial Court. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside impugned judgments passed by the Courts below.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned Additional public prosecutor supported the prosecution case and contended that both the courts below have rightly analyzed the entire evidence on record and justified in passing the impugned judgments. The impugned judgments passed by the courts berow are neither perverse nor illegal and no interference is warranted and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

¶23

In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the points that arise for determination in this criminar Revision case are:

¶24

Whether the impugned judgment, dated 78-.OL.2OO7 passed in Crjminat'Api"ri io.trc or 2ooo by the tearned rrr Add-ii;;;/-'iessions Judge,. a.t. Warangal, confirming the ciiviction recorded by the trial Court agiinst thZ- accused f_o1_the offence punishabte uiaei sictiin sona !el_a.n.d^{modifying the sentence} of impriionment, is liable to be set aside?

¶25

ff so, whether ,s entitled fo r acq u itta I ?^{the petitioner/accused} 6.P OI NTS The prosecution case is that on 17.12.2003 at about 8.30AM, while Sai Dinesh, aged about 6 years, along with his brother Rakesh (pW,2) and father Srinivas (pW.1), was crossing the road near Nagamaiah Temple, Rangasaipet, Warangal, for catching the school bus, one lorry bea ring No.ATS 4446,

¶26

proceeding frorl Vijayawada towards Warangal, being driven in a rash and neglig Int manner, dashed the said Sai Dinesh and he died on the spot.

¶27

There is unimpeachable evidence of pW.1-father of the deceased, besid:s other evidence on record, to substantiate the rash and neglig€nt driving of the lorry bearing No,ATS 4446 by the petitioner/accusr d and causing the death of the deceased_Sai Dinesh, aged ab:ut 6 years. pW.6-Doctor, who concjucted post_ mortem examin, tion over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.B-po;t-mortem report, stated that cause of Ceath of the deceased wa: due to head injury. Such injury was possible in a road accident. Br th the Courts below have meticulously analysed the oral and dor umentary evidence on record and concurrently held that the prc secution proved the guilt of the accused for the olfence under Se([ion 304A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶28

It is apt to state that revisional^jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisior s under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance wit r the provisions of law, and the findings recorded are based on no^r vidence, material evidence is^ignored or^judicial discretion is exerc sed arbitrarily or^perversely. In^{the instantcase,} as seen from th r entire evidence on record, the^(:onclusions reached by the tri rl Court as well as by the lower appellate Court are neither^perver ie, irrational nor there is any^{patentillegality, to} vary the impugne i^judgments delivered by the Courts below.^All the contentions ru ised by the^{petitioner/accused} in this Criminal

¶29

¶30

Revision^{Case,do not merit consideration ' The CriminalRevision} Case^{is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed'}

¶31

In the^{result, this CriminalRevision Case is dismissed' This} Court^{was pleased to susiendthe sentence of imprisonment} against^{the petitioner/accusedvide order daled 26'02'2007 passed} in Crl.R.C.M.P.No'372^{of 2007' In view of the dismissalof this} Criminal^{Revision Case,the trial Court is directed to issue Non-} Bailable^{Warrantto the petitioner/accusedto securehis presence'} for serving^{the sentence of lmprisonment' in accordancewith law'}

¶32

Miscellaneous^{Petitions pending' if any' shall standclosed'}

¶33

¶34

¶35

Sd/-C,V. IVALLIKARJUNA VARIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// L:lf)

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

The lll Additional Sessions JLrf,gs, at Warangal. (with records, if anv) 2. The Additionar Judiciar First cri"si'r'rtiiri,li8, ;t"iillii.g"i. (*iih"ievJoros, ir any; 3. The Superintendent, Central prison, W"*ni,jf "' " "

¶38

3.ffJ,3,S='",#ffi sll"tai3il,"[i#:#"tl,d:::T]",,.,anaHyderabad

¶39

Two CD Cooies flj.^{on" sPareboPY}

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911112021

ORDER

I
c s € c
$ I J \N ?$21 :>L
Joo
t
<br>ti

¶45

CRLRC.No.281^{ol 2007}

¶46

DISMISSING^{THE CRL.T'C.}

¶47

Y
.>,
')/')

Kolanti Ramesh v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolanti Ramesh 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

Yada Narender Vs the State of A.P. and Another

V.Shankaraiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

G.Shiva Raj Vs Smt. G.Durga Bhavani and the State of A.P.

G.S.Mallikarjun Vs Smt Koka Radha Devi

Y. Suryanarayana Raju Vs Vadali Srinivasa Raju and 3 Others, Rep. by P.P.

A.Ravindranath Vs M.Gopal Reddy and 2 Others, Rep. by Pp.