Dismissed

Utti Ramachandram, Ananthapur Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

Telangana HC14 Sept 2022CRLRC/1248/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by an accused convicted of reckless driving causing death. Upholding the lower courts' findings that the prosecution proved rash and negligent driving through eye-witness testimony, the court rejected arguments regarding missing witnesses. It also dismissed the claim that intent is required for this offence, confirming the conviction an

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed; bail granted to the petitioner-accused stands cancelled; direction to surrender forthwith.

Utti Ramachandram, Ananthapur Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1248 OF 2016

¶7

criminal Revision case under sections 397 & 401 of crl.p.c against the Judgment in cd.A.No.9/2015 dated o4lost2o16 on the fite of the court of the Vilt Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak prefened against lhe Judgrnent in cc No.775 of 201 1 dated 2211212014 on the fite of the court of the Judiciat First class Magistrate, Special Mobile at Medak.

¶8

Between:

¶9

9!ti Brqgl,gldram,^{S/o. Chedambaraiah,Aged alout} 37^years, Occ: Lorry Driver, Fi/o. Gandhi Nagar, Bukkaraisamudram, nnaniapui Oi-ttct

¶10

AND

¶11

...PET|T|ONER/ ACCUSED

¶12

The state of relangana, rep.by the pubric prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

CRLRCMP . NO: 1863 0F 2016

¶15

Petition under Section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of criminal- Revision case, tne nitn -Court TgI!9^{ptgased to suspend-the sentenceof imprisonment madein judgm"-nt} datud 04.05.2016 in crt.A.No.9 of 201s on the file of Vilt Additionat Distiicti sessions l$g^e'^l4eda-k^{whichwas passed in confirmingthe conviction vide judgment} Jated 22.12.2014 in cc No.775 ot 2o11 on the fir6 of the Judiciar ualistiate or iirst class, sPL Mobire, tMedak and rerease the petitioner on bair, pend-ing oisposai of the above Criminal Revision Case.

¶16

For the Petitioner : SRt N.ASWARTHA NARAYANA, Advocate (not being present)

¶17

For the Respondent : PUBLTC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE DT..IUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1248 OF 2016

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner-accused against judgment dated 04.05.2016 in Crl.A. No.9 of 2015 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Medak, confirming the^judgment dated 22.12.2014 in CC No.775 of 201 I on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Medak.

¶23

There is no representation for the revision petitioner since long time though the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal' several trmes.

¶24

Heard the leamed Public Prosecutol appearing for respondent.

¶25

The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 01.08.201 I at

¶26

10.30 PM, the complainant lodged a report stating that^{on the same day at} 6.00 PM, his parents along with his sister-in-law,^{a baby girl aged 6 years,} went to their relatives' house at Nallavally village^{for attending a cradle} function and while they were returning back on their CBZ bike bearing No.AP 28 BN 2519, a lorry bearing No.AP02 T 8656 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit tlre,, dLre to which his mother and the

¶27

2 Dr_GRR,J C,].R.C Nol2aEof l6

¶28

baby girl fell on the road, sustained severe bleeding injuries on head and other parts ofthe body and both ofthem died on the spot. Basing on the said report, Crime No.l19 of 20ll for the offence under Section 304-4 IPC was registered by the Station House Officer, Jinnaram. After conducting investigation, the SHO filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-4 IPC. The casc was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Mobile Court, Medak by registering it as CC No.775 of 2011 and conducted trial.

¶29

During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PWs.l to 10 and got marked Exs.pl to p9. No defense evidence was adduced.

¶30

Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-4 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 3M-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

¶31

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the vIII Additional District

¶32

Lr\

¶33

3 Dt(;Rli.J (:tl RC No l2!E ol ?016

¶34

and Sessions Judge, Medak. On re-appreciating the evidence on record, the appellate court also confirmed the judgment of the trial court passed in CC No.775 of 2011

¶35

Aggrieved further, the petitioner_accused preferred this revision, contending that non-examination of the injured person was fatal to the case of the prosecution and the Investigating officer was arso not examined by the prosecution. Some of the witnesses had not identified the accused. The petitioner had not intentionally caused any accident. The prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner allegedly drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The conviction and sentence passed by the courts below was not sustainable either on law or on facts and prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner-accused.

¶36

However, on a perusal of the record, it would disclose that the prosecution examined the rider of the motor cycle, who was the husband of deceased No.l as PW.2 and he categoricalry deposed about the manner of the accident and identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP02 T 8656 and stated that the vehicle rvas driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit his rnotor cycle, due to which his wife as well as the baby girl, rvho were pillion riders, fell down and died on the

¶37

Dr-GRR'J 4 crlR.c No.^{I z.t8oI20l6}

¶38

spot in the^{said accident. Apart from him, two othereye-witnesses' who} were examined^{as PWs.4 and 8, alsodeposedaboutthe marurcr of the} accidentandthattheaccidentwasduetotherashandnegligentdrivingof thedriverofthecrimevehicle.Theyalsos[atedaboutthenumberofthe crime vehicle,^{as the lorrybearingNo'AP02T 8656'As per the evidence} of the Investigating^{Officer, the lorry was at the spotby the tirnelre went to} the place of^{accident and the same was also shorvn in Ex'P2'scene of} offence^{panchanama. Thus, this court findsno merit in the contention of} the leamed^{counselfor the revision petitioner raised in the grounds of} revisionthattheinjuredwasnotexaminedandtlrelnvestigatingofficer was not examined^{and that the eye-witnesseshad not identifiedthe} accused.

¶39

l0.Therewasnomeritinthecontentionoftherevisionpetitioner that the petitioner^{had not intentionallycaused the accident' as it was not a} n€cessary ingredient^{to prove the said offence' It was the rashor negligent} act but not the^{intentionof the accused which wasa necessaryrequisiteto} prove the offence^{under Section304-4 IPC' The trial court as well as the} appellate^{court rightly appreciated the evidence found on record and} rightlyfoundtheaccusedguiltyfortheoffenceunderSection304-4IPC. As the sentence^{imposedon the accusedis alsocommensurating withthe}

¶40

Dr GRR.J crl.RC_ No.t 218 of20I6

¶41

¶42

proved offence, there is no reason to interfere with the judgments of the

¶43

courts below.

¶44

1 1 . In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 04.05.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2015 on the file of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak. The bail granted to the petitioner-accused shall stand cancelled.

¶45

The petitioner-accused is directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith and in case he fails to do so, the trial court is directed to take

¶46

steps in accordance with law to take him into custody.

¶47

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

Sd/-A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUTY Rfi;):AR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

'1 . The Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak. (with records, if any) 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate,^{Special Mobile at Medak. (with records, if} any)

¶53

Th-e Station House Officer, Jinnaram^{P.S., Medak District,fortheState of} Telangana.

¶54

Two Cts to the Public Prosecutor^{(TG),HighCourt for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶55

One CC to Sri N.Aswarthanarayana,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Two CD Copies

¶57

One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410912022

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1248 of 2016

¶66

rla .J
,,)\r.
i<br>I j
i..
) 0 2 tr,[Y ?[23
I
:.':.r ::_ I l:,-,, ._ i: - -- -,,

¶67

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C.

¶68

ta)
_7
(
<br>

Utti Ramachandram, Ananthapur Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Utti Ramachandram, Ananthapur Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

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

Mohammed Ahmed Pasha Vs Shake Zareen , Zareena Sultana

B. Hari Krishna Vs the State of Telangana and 4 Others

T.Janga Reddy Vs the State of a.P., through Sho., Hyd.

S.Pavan Kumar, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

G.Srinivasa Rao, Hyd Vs Punjab National Bank, Hyd and Ano

Syndicate Bank S.R.Nagar Branch Vs Andhra Bank and 2 Others