Partly allowed

Anyalapu Linga Swamy , Lingaiah, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023CRLRC/1110/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision filed regarding a fatal lorry accident, the High Court reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment of one year to simple imprisonment of three months. The court modified the fine structure and upheld the conviction after addressing procedural delays and evidentiary concerns.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case partly allowed; conviction upheld but sentence reduced from rigorous imprisonment of one year to simple imprisonment of three months with fines totaling Rs. 15,000/-.

Anyalapu Linga Swamy , Lingaiah, Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE^{HIGH COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE^{SIXTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICEP.SREESUDHA}

¶5

CRIMINAL R^{EVISIONCASE NO:1110 0F 2009}

¶6

Criminal^{RevisionCase Under Section397 & 401 of Cr'P'Cagainst the Judgment} ;"d;i. il;;;ir'lo.^{zr of 2008 on the file of the court of the Familv -cum-} ijo,i.i.H-sessions^{Judge, Natgonda.dated 30.06.2009asainst the} i'Io"rr^{i" cc No. 576 ot ioos on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First} 6,llr tip*irl^{Mobile Court) at Nalgondadated 23'01'2008'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Anyalapu^{LingaSwamy @ Lingaiah S/o Laxmaiah}

¶9

...PETITIONERYAPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State^{of AP rep. by its Public Prosecutor'High Court of AP' Hyderabad}

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLATNANT

¶13

counselforthePetitioner:SRl.K.JagadishwarReddy,Advocate counsel^{for the Respondents: sri **ll1l} Yfi'll3t;l"rEcuroR (rG)

¶14

The Court^{madethe following: ORDER}

¶15

THE H,O {OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE ST',DH,A, CRI M |NAL REVISION CASE No. 1110 of 2tO,)

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

f ir is Cri unal l?evislon Case is filed agair st tlrr. , ty61q.",,,, dated 30.0(;.2( 0') in Crl.A.No.2l of 2OOn passed ir1 -: e le.arrrcd Famill"r:um-A< :litional Sessions Judge, Nalgoncla r::rnfirmrng thc.lurlgrnt-rrL 1r rcd 23.01.20O8 in C.C.No .576 o! 2O:r5 passcd b,v thc lcarne d lrrd;cral Magistratc of First Class (Spr c: tl 14obilc Court), Nzr lgonr a1

¶18

l'lrc de.fz^.t:r r:omplatnant lodgcd a compl.tirt i 11 Lrn:;t thr. revisio. p(.titior ()r./.c(:use<1 st:rting that he along *ith llg othcrs from Srikakuir -n I)istrict came to Narsinghlratla .,,.lla1ic ol. Nalgontla dir;tt r;r for Labour u,ork and workcc t.rnd:r a Contrar:ror. Crn 22.()5.2OOS, to return to lheir nirtilr: vil l:rge s they boardect a or-ry bearing No AP 24 T 7767 rlong w th thcir luggage. Whr:n t tc vehicle rcached near Motubar.iguclc rrr viitage , the driver of^.tt. lorry namely Anyalapu Lirrga li,r,amy 1a1 Lingaiah drrven hc lorry in rash and negligent man.e.. urlth a high spet:cl tLnr,l rst ( ontrol over Lhe vehicle, as a resulr <;f which the lorry lurre t t.-Lrtre and rour persons die.d ancr others sustained ilr ju^-re ;.

¶19

\E-

¶20

¶21

In order to prove thc guilt o[^{accused, the prosecution} examined P.Ws. 1 to 25^{and markedExs.Pl to p37.}

¶22

The trial Court observed that^{the vehicle was drivenin a} high speed. The inmates^{of the lorry cautionedthe d river to go} slow, but he did not^{listen to them. There is a turning at the} place of accident, as he could not^{slow down the vehicle it} turned turtle twice and^{fell down,as a resull of which4 persons} died and several^{persons sustaincdinj urics Many members} witnessed the accident. Some o[^{the passengers sat besidethe} driver in the cabin and^{some of them have boardedin the body} of the lorry. The accident^{was occurred after travelling one'} Kilometer from Domalapally^{Village- The trial Court considering} the evidence on record^{convicted accusedand sentencedto} undergo Rigorous^{imprisonment for a period of one year and to} pay a flne of Rs.2,OOO/- for^{the offence punishable under} Section 304-,{ of IPC^{and sentenced to three months Rigorous} imprisonment for the^{offencepunishableunderSection337 of} IPC and also sentenced^{toundergosix monthsRigorous} imprisonment^{for the offence punishableunderSection 338 of} IPC. The sentence^{of imprisonmentshall run concurrently'} Aggrieved by the said^{Judgment,the accused preferredan} appeal before the first^{appellateCourt The hrst appellateCourt}

¶23

dismrssr.rl rh itllr)cai b.. cor.rlirming thc Judgmcnt , rl tl're triirl Corrrr Ag<;-re cC b-r the saicl Judgment, the pre :;r n Crtmrrtrl Rcvision C:rse r,. preferred.

¶24

'lh,, lt:a n,-'d Counscl for the revision pr:titiorr:-/a:cust:cl mainly con t:n lcd thal there are several material dir;r: r-cpirncie s, contrad i( 1 tr)n s and omission in the evidence of w:t:r:sse s, br-tl thet, \r'c Te n )t (ionsidercd properly. As iler h,: Cross exantin:rt o r-l o P .'s. i to 7, most of them state d Ihat rhe.,. havc boardt:rl I hc io n from back side, in that stage it is r r>r pc ssr ble to identil, rle rlri'.,er of the vehicle. But, th(.y icit nrified tht: revisror.t pctrtir ,rr:r simply in the Court hall, as sr.ch thr:ir evidencc is rio sustainable 'I'he P.Ws.8 to 10 are rhl: rrjurerl and eyc. r',ilrel scs, but they did not sllpport thr: case ol thr: prosecutio. .n r they drd not identify the accusetr rr; drivt_,r. P W 1 1 is trre independent witness and he has r,Llso not identilied the r river ol the vehicle. The p.W. 17 u.tL,.r isr thc cleancr of the o:-ry has also not supported the c;z s;,:r o. the prosecution. r\s pcr thc evidence of p.w.24, the owrr:r ot- the Crime vehi,:le sr rrendered the Crime vehicle driver in his officc, but the ou,lter o t re vehicle was not examined before [l-re Court and did r)ol seiz( -l thc documents u.hich ar.e in possr:ssi: e oI the petitioncr- likr: d Lving license, ctc., and the photogr.aptr,; ol the

¶25

¶26

crlme vehicle were also not produced before the Cou rt Therefore, requested the Court to set aside thc Judgment of the first appellate Court.

¶27

6 Admitted ly, accused was driving the lorry as on the date of accident. All the passengers intend to go to their native village. Their contention is that accused was driving the vehicle in high speed, as there was turning at the place o[ accidcnt and the speed of the vehicle was not reduced, the vehicle u,as turned turtle. No doubt, four persons were died in the accident and others sustained injuries. Both the Courts gave concurrent finding that accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3O4_A, 33g and 337 of IpC and rhe tria.l Court imposed Rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year.

¶28

The leatned Counsel for the revision pedtioner contended that there was a turning at the place of accident, but it was not noticed by both the Courts. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.p.Raju Vs. State of Orlssa, t in which it was held that accident uas ocanned. about 15 gears back and he u.tas on bail for more than g gears,as such he taas directed. to be released und,er Section 36 O of Cr.p.C on '^I99i Supp (2) SCC 38;

¶29

I \

¶30

)

¶31

prob(Llt()ti o., tlood ()ttclLLC|. I this catse, Lh,j 1(:i(l,lnt \i.ils occrtr-rr'<i on l: 2 05 ,OO5 and the trial Couit d.sp:rscrl of lhc C.C.No 57': o 20O5 on 23.0I.2008 and tho i,pp,ral ^,as confirnreri or .i0 06.200!) and thc prcsent appcai r.rrs preferrcd in the -r,ca. . O(19, from the past l2 years it rvas o:rrding before this Cot.rrr. hl: ean'rcd Counsel lor the pet;riona. irls(, argucd that thi' acc rs;crl rvas aged about 26 years as orr the date o[ accidenr. 3r h tl.rr: Corrrts have not considcrcd the iact that accidcn t \'ai⁽ )(.(.urrtd ut turntng. No doubt , thr: rl -ivr r of thc vchicLe uas 1r iv ng thc vehiclr: with high sper:d. lrs ir result, u'hen tltcrr: r lr; turnirrg rhe lorry turnecl turtlrr and fi.rlrr persons nere clit'r1 lt ritc a(-(.i(lcnt and others sust.rine,l i.-rjuries. He oughL to hav :;lowdown the vehicle at the tut.nin€1, : ut he failed to do so. .\l t rre u.itne sses stated that they instr -.r ted him to redur:c lhc s c,td. Evcn then, hc has not reducerl tlre speed, but in fact :rl1 of rr:rrL inte nded to reach railway slation 1.(, go to their native lrlzrr:e, i1s the contract on which they r:ame o.,,er from all the wav to irikirkulam u,as completed. Tht.relbrt: this Court finds iL jul and reasonablc to modify the s,lntlnce of imprisonmer inrposed against the accuscd fror:r Rigorous imprisonrner bl a pcriod of one year to Sin-rple i tr.tris,onment for a pt:rir;d >l'tlrree months lvith a fine of Rs.S,O,J,O/ for the ollencc puni h,rble undcr Sectlon 304-A of II)C. ,t tr: further to

¶32

¶33

¶34

pay a linc of Rs.5,OO0/^{for Lhc offence underSection 337 ot tPC} and also to pay a fine^{of Rs.5,00O/-(Total fine ol Rs l5,OOO/-)} for the offence under^{Section 338 of IPC, in delault to suffer} Sirnple imprisonment^{for the periodof 15 dayson each count'}

¶35

In the result, the^{CriminalRevision Case is parLly allowed} uphotding the conviction^{passedby the hrstappellateCourt,} but the sentence^{of imprisonmentimposedagainst the revision} petitioner/ accused^{is reduccd from Rigorous imprisonment fora} period of one year to Simple^{imprisonmentfor a period of three} months with a fine of^{Rs.S,OOO/-for the offence punishablc} under Section 304-,{^{of IPC, and further to pay a fine of} Rs.S,0OO/- for the^{offenceunderSection337 of IPC and also to} pay a hne of Rs.5,O00/-^{(Total fine of Rs' 15,OOO/-)for the} offence under^{Section 338 of IPC, in default to suffer Simple} imprisonment for the^{period of 15 days on each count'}