Partly allowed

Doggela Sambaiah, Warangal District v. the State of a.P., Rep.by Pp., High Court of a.P., Hyderabad

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023CRLRC/1169/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner for causing death by rash and negligent driving. However, recognizing the prolonged incarceration, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while dismissing the appeal in all other respects.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone. The criminal revision case is generally dismissed.

Doggela Sambaiah, Warangal District Vs the State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

Bail Slip;- The Petitioner and accused^{was directedto be releasedon bail by Court} Order of the High Court Dated 31^{.05.201 1 in CRL.R.C.M.P.No.1673 of} 2011 in CRL.R.C.No.1169 ot2011.

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAO

¶3

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

INAL REVISIO c E NO: 1169 OF 201

¶7

Criminal Revision Case Under Sections^{397 & 401 of Cr.P.Cagainstthe} Judgment made in Crl.ANo.33 of^{2008 dated27.05.2011 on the file of the Court} of the lV Additional Sessions^{Judge, (FTC)Warangal preferredagainstthe} Judgment made in C.C.No.37^{of 2005 dated28.3.2008 on the file of the Court of} the lll Additional Judicial^{First Class Magistrate, at Warangal.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Doqqela Sambaiah, S/o. Durgaiah^{Owner-cum-Driverof the LorryNo AP 5 T 5090} R/ol-Regonda Village and^{Mandal,Warangal District.}

¶10

...'ET,T,ONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., Rept.^{by its PublicProsecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.}

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner^: Ms.^{T. MANJULA (LEGAL AID)}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent^{: M/S VIZARATH ALI}

¶16

ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

E r*/

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CAsE NO.1169 0F 2011

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This criminal revision case is nled under section 397 ancl 401 of criminal Procedure code (for short 'cr.p.c.) by the petitioner aggrieved by the^judgment dated 27.O5.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2OOg on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions (FTC) Judge, Warangal wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment against the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year vide judgment in CC No.37 of 2005 dated 28.05.200g was confirmed.

¶22

Heard Ms.T.Manjula, legal ard counsel for the petitioner and Sri vizaraL Ali, learned Assistant public prosecutor. representing learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/ responclent.

¶23

The accusation against the petitioner is that on 16.06.2004 when one Gandham Ashok anci his family members returning from Vijayawada to Mancherial in TATA Sumo bearing No.Ap 2g U 9090, driven by Bhadari Ramakrishna @ Ramu, they reached outskirts of Wardhannapet Village and passed DC Thanda, the petitioner, being the driver-cum-owner of lorry bearing No.Ap 5 T so90 with coal loacl, came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the said rATA Sumo due to which Vangala preethi, Gandham Rakesh, Narendula K.shna K,mar-i, Narendula Vishnu priya, Gandham Swathi, Bhadri

¶24

\ 1

¶25

I'age 2 of^(r

¶26

Ramarksihna^{(@ Ramu, Vangala Kar-unakarSu'amy'Gandarrr Vijaya} Knrnerri^{andVangali'J'Savithrirvere crushed in the vehicle and sustained} severe^{injuries all over the bocly' When the-y wereshifted to htrspital'} out ol thern,^{Bhadrit?-amakrishna@) Rarnu'Varrgala[(at trnakar} Srvarn.y,^{Gandam VijayaKumariztndVangaia Savithrisur:curnbed clue} to injuries.^{Accordingly, a case in Crime No'86 of 2OO4for the <-rffences} punishable^{underSections337' 338 and 3C4-A of IPC againstthe} petitioner^{.'';z.rs registerccl'Upon cornpletion of investigation' the police} lai<l crirarge-sh.eet^{ancl the satne was numbcredas CC No'37 of 2005} ancl^{t-he learned trial Court, upon examinationof evidence available on} the record,^{iu the form of PWs lto 22 arrd Exs'Pl to P3t' found the} petilioner^{guilry and convicted andsentencedhim to suffersimple} impriscnment^{for a periorl of one year ior the offence pr'rnishalrle r:nder} Sec,:ion 304-A^{IPC stating that since the trrrnishmentfor the said} offence,^{out of the offencesalleged' is a major one' there \'asno rteed to} convict the^{petitionerfor the offence punishable underSections 337} and338ofIPC.Thesaid{irrdingswereconltrmedbythelearnedlV Additional^{Sessions (FTC) Judge, warangalvide judgmentdated} 27.O5.2O11^{in CriminalAppeal No'33of 2008'}

¶27

Aggrieved bi'^{the findings of troth the Courts below' the} petitioner preferred^{the present criminal revisioncase contending that} both the^{Courts below havenot appliedthe maxim of res-ipsa-liquotor}

¶28

Page J of6

¶29

,:
,i

¶30

i.e. things speak for itself and that they failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in his favour in a proper perspective and the rash and negligent driving on the part of the TATA Sumo vehicle. On the other hand, learned Assistant pubric prosecutor conte nds that rrndings of both the Court below are well considered and reasonable and they cannot be interfered by this Court and that the grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner do not warrant any interference by this Court in view of the concurrent findings.

¶31

PWs. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are the injured, victims and eye witnesses to the accident, they clearly depicted the entire episode of their pilgrimage and accident during their return journey fastening the liability on the petitioner stating that due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle only the accident had tal<en place. Their sustaining injuries is proved through the evidence of I)Ws.9, ll, 12, 14 and 20, who issued Exs.p3 to p10 wound certihcates explaining the nature and gravity of wounds, they sustained. pWs.16 to 1g, who are the panch witnesses for the inquest conducted over the bodies of deceased and SI of Wardhannapet, deposed about the death of four persons in the accident. However, no doctor, u,ho conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased was examined by the prosecution. Post-mortem reports of deceased i.e. trxs.prS to prg were marked

¶32

Pape 4 of6

¶33

through PW 18, disclosing the cause of death as^{multiple injuries in the} road rraffic accident

¶34

There is no dispute regardirrg the accidr,nt and resultaut deatl:r of four pcrsons and injr-rries to rernailing^{inmates of the victim} vchicle due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle at the crucial time of accident. Evidence of^{PW21, MotorVehicie} ln s pr:ctor', v;ho issued Ex.P24, revealed ttrat thcre^{were nome chanical} dclects in the crime vehicle at the tirne of accident.^{The petitiorler} dcnicd his liabili$ contending that he^was not the^{ciriverof the crime} vehicle at the time of accident. Though PWs.2 to 4 did not identily the petit-ioner as thc driver of crirne vehicle, PWs.l and 6 have categorically icicntif-red the petitioner as the ciriver at the irme of accident. Further PWs.l to 3, 5 and 6 trave categoricallv stated that dur-' to the^{rash and} negligent driving of the driver of Lhe crime vehicle only the accident has taken place. Further', PW8, wtro is the cleaner,^worked on the crirne vehicle, also admitted the liability of tire driver of the crirne^{vehicle for} occurrence of accident but he did not identify the^petitioner as^its driver. In that view of the matter, it can be^presumed that being an employee under the petitioner, he tried to rertder his assistant to help the petitioner in getting acquittal. So, the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident is proved beyond reasorrable doubt trut the petitioner is denying that he is the driver of the said vehicle at the time

Page 5 of6

)

fl:.
't

of accident. Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that the driver of the victim vehicle was in intoxicated condition at the time of accident due to which the accident had taken plac.e. But there is nothing on record to prove the above said fact as the doctors, who examined the body of deceased driver did not express any opinion regarding the recitals of alcohol in his body. Ex.p31 trip sheet clearly proved that the petitioner was assigned the duty of carrying the coal on the crime vehicle at the time of accident. It is the burden of the petitioner to cite the person who drove the crime vehicle at the +,ime of accident in his place against the assignment. In that view of the matter, by relying on the evidence on record, the prosecution could able to prove the identity of the petitioner as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident.

¶40

7 . Having contended several things denying his liability in the subject matter accident, the petitioner failed to substantiate the same with cogent and acceptable evidence and or-r the other hand, the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond ) reasonable doubt. Keeping these facts in mind, the tria.l Court has ) rightly found the petitioner guilty for committing the subject matter accident resulting ln death of four members and injuries to the remaining inmates of the victim car. The same were confirmed by the appellate Court. Findings of both the Courts below are quite

¶41

I'asc 6 ol6

¶42

¶43

reasonable, made basing on the material available on record and hence, they cannot be interi'ered with by this Ccurt

¶44

So far as Lhe quanturn of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, from the year 2OO4 the petitioner has been roaming around the Courts for deiending himself by facing mental agony and trauma. I'his itself is a sufficient ground to take a lenient vicrv in so far as the sentence of imprisonment irnposed on the petitioner by the Courts below is concerned. Therefore, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year imposed to the petitioner is hereby reduced to that of the period of imprisonment^q,hich he has already undergone.

¶45

trxcept the above modrfication in respect of period of sentence of sirnple irnprisonment, this crirninal revision case in all other aspects is dismissed. The bail bonds of thc petitioner shall stand cancelled. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, sl-rall stand dismissed.

¶46

Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUW REGI RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The lV Additional Sessions Judge^{(FTC), Warangal}

¶52

The lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of^{First Class, Warangal}

¶53

The Superintendent, Central Jail, Warangal

¶54

One CC to P.Sajan Kumar, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶55

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶56

Two CD Copies ks

kam

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810912023

ORDER

-(
Irt'i
1t [tI ?t?3

CRL.R.C.No.1 169 of 2011

¶64

Dismissing the Crl.R.C.

Doggela Sambaiah, Warangal District v. the State of a.P., Rep.by Pp., High Court of a.P., Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doggela Sambaiah, Warangal District v. the State of a.P., Rep.by Pp., High Court of a.P., Hyderabad

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

Banoth Bhadru Naik Vs Dr.Budha Prakash Jyothi

P.Prabhaker Rao, Medak Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

A.Chandrasekhar , Shekar, Ramnagar, Hyderabad Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Hyd and Anr.

B.Srinivasulu, Mahaboobnagar and 2 Otrs., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Shaik Adil Pasha Vs Seema Anjum Divorcee and Another

Manthri Lingam Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp