Allowed

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

Telangana HC8 Sept 2022CRLRC/171/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court allowed the petition and acquitted the accused of involuntary culpable homicide (IPC 304-A) and failure to produce vehicle documents. The court set aside the conflicting trial and appellate judgments citing manifest illegality.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge is set aside; the petitioner is acquitted; fine is refunded; bail bonds cancelled; sureties discharged.

T.Janga Reddy Vs the State of a.P., through… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 171OF 2013

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 Crl.P.C against the Judgment in Crl.A.No.'t 0'l/1 l dated 28101113 on the file of the Courtof the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad preferred against the Order !n CC No.1618/2007 dated 28106111 on the file of the Court of the ll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

T.Janga Reddy, S/o.Ranga Reddy aged about 42 yearc, Rl/o.H.No.4-38, Koheda Village Haythnagar Mandal, RR District.

¶9

...PETTTTONER(ACCUSED/ APPELLANT)

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of A.P., through SHO., L.B.Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESpONDENT(COMpLATNANT/ RESPONDENT)

¶13

This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.D.Krishna Murthy. Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent.

¶14

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶15

I'llE, IION'BLE l)r. JUS'l'lC[ G. RADIIA R,\Nl

¶16

CltIl{INAL REVISION CASE No.t7l OI'2013

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-appellantaccused aggrieved by the^judgment in Criminal Appeal No.101 of 201 I dated 28.01.2013 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cvberabad.

¶19

The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 11.07.2007 at 5.00 PM, the conrplainant lodged a report before L.B. Nagar Police stating that on 10.07.2007 at 11.00 PM, his elder brother Sudkahar Reddy, aged 40 years, resident of Nelwalpatly village, Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District, while crossing the road near Sagar Ring Road, L.B.Nagar, the driver of Car bcaring No.AP-9 AJ 4997 came from Manda Mallamma Function Hall sirle and while proceeding towards L.B. Nagar Chowrastha, hit his brother, due to which his brother sustained severe bleeding injuries on head, hand et:., and was admitted in Osmania General Hospital (OGH), Hyderabad. Basing on the said report, L.B. Nagar Police registered a case in Crime No.707 of 2007 for the offence under Section 337 IPC.

¶20

On 16.07.2007 at 9.10 PM, the injured Sudhakara Reddy died at OGH while undergoing treatment. As such, Section of Law was altered

¶21

) (''1RC f. 1-1 tt ol:bliGRR../

¶22

from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC. Attcr cornpletiug the invesrigarion, rhe policc filed charge sheet against the petitioner-accused for the oflence under Sectiorr 304-4 II'C.^'l hc petitioner-accuscd rvas arested on 20.07.2007. As the crime vehicle was not having insurance and the accused drivcr ran away from the scene alter the accident along with the crime vehicle, without taking carc of the injured, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 304-4 IPC and Sections l34ll77 and 1961177 ol the Motor Vel.ricles Act. The case was taken cognizancc by the lI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar and conducted trial.

¶23

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.l to 8 and got marked Exs.Pl to P7. No defence evidence was adduced by the petitioner-accused. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

¶24

5 Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioneraccused prefened an appeal. The appeal was heard and disposed ofby the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad vide Crl.A. No. 101 of

¶25

2011 dated 28.01.2013. The appellate court also conlirnred the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by thc trial cour1.

¶26

Aggrieved further, the petitioner-accuscd preferred this revision contending that the lower appellate couft erred in confirming the conviction and st:ntence imposed by the trial courl though the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. l'he coun.s below failed to note that there was delay in lodging the report as the alleged incident occurred on 10.07.2007 during night hours, but the conrplaint was given to the police on 11.07.2007 and no explanation rvas given for the said delay. The cou(s below failed to note that the evidence of the witnesses differed lrom each other. The courts below failed to see that the evidence of PW.2 was not believable since he wap away from the alleged accident spot and it was not possible for him to see the incident rluring late night hours when there were no street lights on the road and ought to have discarded his evidence. The police failed to collect the case sheet of the deceased at OGH as the injured expired six days after the date of the accident. The courts below committed error in believing the testimony of PWs.l and 2 as to the identification of the accused. The courts ought to have seen that all the witnesses were highly interested and prayed to set aside the judgment passed in Crl.A. No.10l of

¶27

.1 Ol.R C. ia l'lol )t)ll

¶28

20 ll dated 28.01.2013 on the trle ol Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad.

¶29

Ileard Sri M. Surender Rao, leamed Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner-accused and the leamed Public Prosecutor for the respondent

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a delay of l8 hours in lodging the report. No explanation was given by thc prosecution for the said delay. The complaint marked under Ex.P1 would not disclose whether the complainant was present at the place of accident. One Ashok Reddy was shown as an eye-witness to the accident in the charge sheet. The charge sheet would disclose that as per the registration certificate of the vehicle, one N. Nirmala Reddy was the owner of the car. Brft, the prosecution failed to cite her as a witness and failed to prove whether the accused was engaged by Nirmala Reddy. No document was filed to prove the said fact or any witness deposed about it. The evidence with regard to the identity of the accused was not believable as no test identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer and the accused was identified in the dock by the witness. As per the charge sheet, the accused driver ran away from the scene after the incident along with

¶31

¶32

the crirne vehrcle.^'[he evidence as to the involvemcnt of the vehicle and the identity o[ the driver was not proved beyond rcasonable doubt. Appreciation of evidence by the trial court as rvell as the lorver appellate courl was not on sound lines and prayed to set aside the said judgments.

¶33

l'he learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that there were c()ncurrent findings of the coufts below r.vith regard to the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-accused lbr the olfence under Section 304-4 IPC. This Court in revision, could not disturb the findings of fact and therelbre, there was no necessity to set aside the judgments of the courts belou and prayed to dismiss the revision by confirming the orders olthe courls below.

¶34

10.^'lhough this Court had no authority to appreciate the evidence in revision in the manner as the trial court and appellate court were required to and r:ould exercise its power of appreciation ol'evidence only in exceptional cases which would require interference lbr correction of a manifest illegatily or for prevention of gross miscaniage of^justice or the courts had excluded the evidence which was admissible or relied on inadmissible evidence by overlooking the material evidence, justified in exercising the revisional power.

¶35

DI CRRJ (iRC N. t-t ol)o1j

¶36

¶37

I l. As seen fiom the rocord, the injured / deceased met with an accident on 10.07.2007 at 11.00 PM near Sagar Ring Road, L.B. Nagar, while crossing the road hit by a Maruthi car and sustained severe injuries. The cornplaint was lodged by the brother of the injured on 11.07.2007 at 5.00 PM. The number of the Maruthi car was stated by the complainant in his report. The complaint would not disclose whether the complainant witnessed the incident or the same was inlorrned to him by anyone. There was a delay of 18 hours in lodging the report. No explanation was given for the said detay in the complaint.

¶38

The complainant was exarnined as PW.l. The complainant as well as the injured,/deceased were reported to be belonged to Nelwalpally Village of Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. The complainantPW.l stated in his chief examination that he received telephone call from LW2 (PW.2) regarding the accident to his brother and went to Sagar Cross Road at 11.00 PM and shifted his brother to OGH for treatment and after one week his brother succumbed to injuries. He stated that later he came to know that the Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 9J 4997 hit his deceased brother. In his cross-examination he stated that though he was doing agriculture in Nelwalpally, he was residing in Hyderabad and that one

¶39

1 I), I;R R.J |,1t: t ,,t-t,,t:t)lj

¶40

Yashrvanth Redd.r informed him about the accident to his brother ancl that the deceaseci \vas not his own brother.

¶41

C)ne Ashok Reddy was examined as PW.2 and lrc stated that the deceased Su<lhakar Reddy was his co-brother. He stated that three years ago, while he was proceeding by walk near a transpon cornpany at Sagar Cross Road, at about 11.30 PM or 12.00 PM, he obserued a Maruthi Car coming Iiorn Manda Mallamma Function Hall and procecding towards L.B. Nagar side, 1it his co-brother. He along with Srinivas lieddy (PW. l) shifted him to OGH for treatment. He stated the number olthe Maruthi car as AP 9 AJ 4996 PW.l had not stated about shifting the deceased along with PW.2. PW.2 identified the petitioner-accused as the person who drove the vehicle on that day.

¶42

In his cross-examination he stated that he did not observe whether any street lights were there at the time of accident, he did not observe whether any other persons were present in the car, he had only seen the driver. [[e also stated that the car driver fled arvay, he came to the place of accidcnt within five minutes of the accident.

¶43

As p,;1 ths charge sheet, the police apprehended the petitioneraccused driver or. 20.07.2007 along with the crime vehicle at 9.30 hours

¶44

3 It --I i Rr.J (tlRC \a l'lnt )0ll

¶45

¶46

and seizcd the vehicle l{egistration Ccrtiflcatc and clriving licence ol the accused and on verification of the documents as per RC, the registration of the vehicle was in the name ol onc Smt. N. Nirrnala Reddy Wo. Raja Reddy. The driver was having valid driving licence, but the crime vehicle was not having insurance.

¶47

The vehicle was examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on 23.07.2007 at L.B. NagarPolice Station. Thc MVI fbund no damages to the vehicle and opined that the accident was not duc to any lnechanical defects of the said vehicle. The MVI was examined as PW.7.

¶48

The Investigating Officer was examined as PW.8. He stated in his cross-examination that PW.1 was not present at the time of accident. It was not specifically mentioned in Ex.P.l that PW.l was present at the place of accident. He also admitted that PW.2 stated that he did not see the accused and did not mention about the brand and colour of the car and had also not stated about the exact location of the accident. He also admitted that PW. I did not state in Ex.P.l that he was resident of Hyderabad and stated that he was a resident of Vemulapally, Naglonda District.

¶49

Thus, the evidence of the witnesses would disclose that there were contradictions with regard to the number of the vehicle involved,

¶50

about the prcscnce ol- the PW. I and 2 at the time ol' acciclent and rvith regard to the idertity of the driver. The delay in lodging the IrlR, thc name of the eye rvitness not being mentioned in the complaint rnarked under Ex.P. 1, the non-examination of the registered owner of the vehicle to asceftain as to w ro was the driver at the time of the accident and identitv of the driver of the vehicle when the car after hitting the deceased fled away fronr ll.tc scene without stopping, all raises a suspicion rvith regard to the involr,,ement of the vehicle bearing No.AP 9 AJ 4997 and as to the identity of the accused as the driver of the said vehicle at the tirne of the alleged incident.

¶51

Ilut, the trial court observing that the FIR was not an encyclopedia anrl the omissions of details in FIR u,ould not put the prosecution case out of the court, PWs.l and 2 being relatives of the deceased would not wipe off their evidence as interested witnesses or related, brushed aside the objections taken by the defence by placing reliance on certain citations, to support its view.

¶52

l-he lower appellate court observed that the contention of the defence counsel that there were no lights at the scene of offence, could not be appreciaterl as it was not elicited during the course of cross-examination

¶53

¶54

l0 Ib ARR,J ('t1R C :!. lll tt 20ll

¶55

of PWs.2 and 3 or fiom thc evidence of PW.8 that there were no lights at the scene of offence and ExP.2 rough sketch would show that electrical polls and street light lamps etc., werc available at the scene, nothing was elicited in the cross-examination olPW.4, the panch witness for the crime detail form with regard to street lights. It observed that the evidence of the eye-witness was corroborated by the evidence of PW.3 and the inquest report under Ex.P.4 and the MVI repoft under Ex.P.S would prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act ol thr: driver of the Maruthi car conhmred the guilt of the accused for the of'fbnce under Section 304-4 IPC.

¶56

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suryavir v. State of Haryana [Crl.A.^{No.177of 2022dated,03.02.20221,wherein it was held that box} identification by the witness for the first time in the court, in the circumstlnces, could not by itselfbe relied upon to establish the identity of the assailants. In the said case, the identity of the assailant was made in the First Information Report. But, the Hon'ble Apex Court observing that what was the source of information was never disclosed at any juncture nor any witness was examined by the prosecution to establish the said fact, in the absence of primary source who knew the identity and had witnessed

¶57

ll lt^(;RR..t (j1R( No l'lot:ttli

¶58

the incident such assertions in the FIR as well as the examination in chief

¶59

of the witness would not be adequate and trustworthy, observed as such.

¶60

In tlre present case, the presence ol PW.2 at the time of accident itselt'is suspicious. Being a co-brother of the deceased and his name not found in the complaint, the compliant was lodged l8 hours after the incident, raisr:s a strong suspicion of his witnessing the accident. The crime vehicle nu:rber was also not stated by him correctly. He gave the number of the Maruthi Car as AP 9 AJ 4996 in contrary to the statement of the complainant, examined as PW.l, who gave the number as AP 9 AJ 4997. The prosecution case was also against the Maruthi car bearing No.AP 9AJ 4997 When the prosecution case, as per the charge sheet, was that the accused driver ran away from the scene after the incident along with crime vehicle, the witnesses stating the number of the car and identifying the driver for the first time in the court is highly unbelievable. How long the vehicle or driver were present at the scene was not extracted in their evidence to know whether there is any opportunity for the witnesses to iderrtify the driver. Without obsewing these facts, the trial couft and the lcwer appellate court convicting the accused person, is considered as nranifestly illegal. To correct the manifest illegality

¶61

¶62

resulting in rniscarriage ofjustice, it is considcred necessary to interlere with the findings olthe courls below by exercising the revisional power.

¶63

The trial court failed to frame any charge against the petitioner-accused under Section l34ll77 and 1961177 of the MV Act, even though the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner-accused for the said offences. Though it was raised in the grounds ofappeal befbre the lower appellate court that the^judgment was silent about the offences attributed against the accused under Sections 134 and 196 read with 177 of the MV Act, the lower appellate court also observed that as the triai court had not whispered anything about it, it was not interested to go deep into the said aspect and ignored the same. Thus, the observations of the trial court and the lower appellate court on the findings of facts are perverse, which needs interference by this court. Hence, it is considered fit to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned^judgment.

¶64

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the^judgment dated 28.01.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10l of 2011 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad. Consequently, the petitioner-accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 304-4 IPC. The fine amount, paid if any, shall be refunded to the

¶65

¶66

Ib CRR.J (lRC No lTtot )ot3

¶67

petitioncr-accused. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties are

¶68

discharged.

¶69

Pending nliricellaneous petitions, ifany, shall stand closed.

¶70

Sd/-K.ONESIM DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶71

sEcTroN drrrcen

¶72

¶73

1 The Additional fi/etropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar. 2 The ll Metropolil.an Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. a One CC to Sri D,.Krishna tt/urthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUr) Two CD Copies

¶74

6^ One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/09/2022

ORDER

CRLRC.No.171 ol 2t)13

¶80

;;;i <br>(''
/ s sEP 2$22
Ii
.'/-r*rayty

¶81

¶82

ALLOWING THE CRL.R.C.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

B.Jayaprakash Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Advance Computers, Vs M/ s Ramakrishna Tele electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Illendula Sanjeeva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

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

Mohammed Ahmed Pasha Vs Shake Zareen , Zareena Sultana

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