In a criminal revision challenging a conviction for negligent driving causing death, the High Court upheld the finding of guilt but modified the sentence, reducing imprisonment to the period the petitioner had already undergone.
Sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
t329s 1
BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/Accused was directed to be releasedon bail by the order of the High court dated:24-o7-2009in CRL.RC.MP.No.1695 of 2009 in cd.R.c No.1231 of2009.
lN THE HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1231 OF 2009
criminal Revision caseunder Sections 397 & 401 of cr.P.c. against the order daled:21-07-2009made in crl.A.No.1520f 2008 0n the file of the courtof the Principal Sessions court,warangalpreferred against the order in cc.No.345 of 2006, dated 27-11-2008on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal.
Between:
Ajjuri Sathish, S/o. Bixapathi,Aged about 24 yeats, R/o.H.No.16-1905,Urus, Kareemabad, Warangal.
...Petitioner/Accused
AND
The State of A.P., rep. byPublic Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad'
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI TALAT MADIHA
Counsel for the Respondent:ASSISTANT PUBLICPROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION cAsE NO.1231 0F 2009
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 39T and. 401 of Cocle of Criinrnal ProceCure (for short 'Cr.p.C.') by the petitioner/accusecl aggrievccJ b1, the Judgerncnt dated 21 .O7.2009, passerl in Crinrina_l Appeal No.152 ol 2008 bv the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal modifying.Lhe sentence a'"varded in CC No.345 of 2006, d.ated 27.1 1.2008 by the learned I Additional .Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal.
Page 2 of 6
In that connection a case inCrime No.4 of 2006,on the file of the Poiice Station, Atmakur',,sasregistere C lbr theoffences punishable under Sections 304-4and 338 of IPC and the said police, after ccmpletion of investigation,laici charge-sheet against the petitioner herein, whichwas ntrmbei-ed as CC No.345 of 20A6. During trial, theprosecution examined PWs'l to 12 and marked Exs.P. 1 to P12 onits behalf-No oral or documentar5r evidence is adduced on behalfof defencelthe petitionerherein' After thoughtful considerationof the mateijdavailabie on record, the trial Court found thepetitioner gr-rilty for the offences punishable under Sections304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and convictecl and sentencedhim to undergo simple imprisonmentfor six months, three monthsand one monthrespectivelyfor the said offences. The substantivesentencesof imprisonmentwere ordered to run concurrentlY.
Page 3 of6
337 of IPC while confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 304-4 and 33g of Ipc and modified the sentence arvarded therein to the petitioner from simple imprisonment for six months to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/_ for the offence punishable under section 304-A Ipc and simpre imprisonment for three months to rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run coacurrently with set off of the pre_tr.ial custodv undergone by the petitioner herein, if any.
Page 4 of6
requested to acquithim from all the charges with which he was charge-sheeted.
Page 5 of6
f (
Vehicle Inspector has categorically mentioned the name of owner of crime vehicle in column No.16(a) and the name of the petitioner as driver in column l,lo.16(b) of his report under Ex.pg. Evidence of PWs.4 arrd 6 to 8, who a-re the punch witnesses and medical witnesses, as rvell as contents of Exs.p2 to pg clearly established the fact of death of the deceased and injuries to PWs.2 and 3 in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner being the driver of crime vehicle. In view of the above referred evidence, it is proved beyoncl reasonable doubt that the petiLioner herei. rvas the driver of the crime vehicle at the m.aterial time of accident and due to his rash and negligent driving only the death of deceased and injuries to pWs.2 ancl 3 were caused
Page 6 of6
Accordingly, this Courtis of the consideredview that a lenient vieu, can be takenin so fa_r as the said sentenceof imprisonment imposed on thepetitionerby the courts below is concerned'
applications, ifany pending,shall stand cancelled'
Sd/- M. MANJULA DEPUW REGISTRAR Cb
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
fi I
HIGH COURT
DATED:2710712023
ORDER
;iaT!:
(
\t
..L A,
:, ,,!'
(;i-jia
,)/
"t zrl .,. t. .- -a
- --t *.,:-r -
CRLRC.No.1231of 2009
THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED
v t
6.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of imprisonment awarded in the criminal revision should be reduced considering the petitioner had already undergone the full term.
Whether the conclusion that the petitioner was the driver casting a rash light was supported by material evidence including witness PW2 and PW5.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajjuri Sathish
The State of A.P.
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
