Partly allowed

Gundelly Mallesh v. the State of A.P

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023CRLRC/2024/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court allowed the current sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused, considering over 16 years have passed since the offence, while dismissing the revision as to the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of simple imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner; fines maintained; revision otherwise dismissed.

Gundelly Mallesh Vs the State of A.P — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

BAIL SLIP: The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be^released on^bail by^the order of the High Court dated 28-09-2011 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3026^{of 2011 in Crl.R.C} No.2024 of 2O11.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 2O24 of 2011

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P C., aggrieved by the Judgmenl daled 22-09-2Ol 1 in Crl.A.No.56 of 2O11 on the^frle of the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Kamareddy, modifying the conviction and sentence imposed daled 07 -O7 -2011 in C.C.No.247 of 2OO7 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Special Judicial Magistrate at First Class (Mobile) at Kamareddy.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gundelly Mallesh, S/o Lingaiah, aged about 36 years, Occ:Driver of Tractor Bearing Reg.No.AP-25-N-9384, r/o Akkapur Village of Machareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District.

...Petitioner

(Accused/Appellant)

AND

The State of A.P, through S.H.O., Machareddy P.S., Nizamabad District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondent (ComplainanURespondent)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY CHEEDELLA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VIZARATH ALl, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

I I

¶20

.'7

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL C_B|II4TNAL REVr SION CASE No.2024 of 20tt

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Tht: pr.t.sent crirninal revision case is filed aggricvecl b1, the judgrnenr passerl in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 201 I dated 22'09.2o I I o'r the file of Acrditional Junior ci'il Jtrclge _ cum -^{Spccial.Jrrdicial} Magistrate of First Class at Kamarecldy.

¶24

A cl'rar-ge sheet came to be filed against the ;retitioner herein for t he offences punishable under Section 304_4 Indian Penal Cocle, I9OB (l.P.C.) and under Section 192(i) and 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, and he was tried for the aforesaid offences. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.O5.2OO7 the accused herein while proceeding to bring padd_v bags lrom the field of A.Bhumaiah allowed A.Bhumaiah, G.Srinu, R.Narsaiah, C.Rajaiah ancl dr:ceased D.Bhumaiah to sit in tl-re trolley and while proceeding to the field, the acctrsecl herein drove the tractor in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and when reached near Durgdmma Temple D.Bhumaiah who sat in the trolley jumped down fr-om t he tractor trolley due to vvhich he sustained* iljuries ancl wh e shifting him in an auro for

¶25

-.lrc

¶26

., .fi

¶27

trcatment the deccased^{succumbcd to irljuries After} complction of the^{investigation, the police filed charge sheet} u,hiclr rvas taken on^{iile as C.C.No} '247^{ol 2OO7 '}

¶28

After taking^{cognizance of the case, complving with} the mandatory^{provisions and on appearanceof the accused'} the Additional Junior^{Civil Judgecum Special Judicial} Magistrate, Kamareddy^{examined the accused undet' section} 251 Cr.P.C. and^{when the accusationsconstitutingolfences} punishable under Section^{304-A I P'C' and under section} 192(i) and 196^{of Motor VehiclesAct was put to him' he} denied the same^{and claimedto be tried.}

¶29

In support of its^{case, the prosecutionexamined} P.Ws.1 to 10^{and got marked Exs.P'Ito P'1O' Exs'D l to D'4} were tnarked on behalf^{of the accusedand no material} objects were marked.

¶30

After closure^{ofthe prosecution evidence'the} accused was^{exarninedunder section 313 Cr'P'C''wherein} hedeniedtheevidenceonrecord.However,nooralevidence was adduced.

¶31

e (). Arr(.r' ^^t. al)l)t'r'(.rattnq the oral and dOCUmentart. evidence orr r-ccord. (lte Magistrate fonr-rcl the accrrseri guiltv of the chargcs uncler Ser:tions 304 A I.p.C., ancl under Section 192 l) ancl 196 ol M.V.Act., and convictr-.d the accused to r,rnclergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and irnposed :r fine of Rs. 100O/_ for the offence committed undcr Secrion 30.1 A I.p.C., and further sentenced to pay Rs. lO00/ I'ine for the offence committed under Section 192(i) err-rd I9(r of M.V.Act for each count.

¶32

Aggr-icr.ed b-r, thc sarle, accused preferred Crl.A.No.56 of ,O 1 I belore Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kamzrreddr,. By its judgment dated 22.O9.2O11, the appellate Court parth, allou,ed the appeal by setting aside the sentence ar,r,,ardecl b1, the Trial Court under Sectio n 192(ll and 196 of NI.V.Act and b-y reducing the sentence imposed under Section 304-4 ol I.p.C., from one year to six months by maintaining the fine amount already imposed. Challenging the same the present revision is filed.

Y,%

Ilcarrcl lcarned counsel^{for the revisionpetitior-rer/} accuscd ar-rd the learued^{Assistant Public Prosecutorlor the} responclent State artd^{perused the record}

¶38

Thcrc is concurrent finding^{of both the Courts belou'} witl-r regard to guilty^{of the revisionpetitioner/ accusedar'rd} the learr-red counsel^{for the revision petitioner/ accused has} also not provcn anything,^{which would discreditthc} evidence. Therefore, there^{is no interferenceq'arrantedas} far as conviction is concerned,^{but with regardtothe} sentence, it ma1'^{be mentionedthat the offence took place in} the year 2OO7 and, almost^{16 years have passed and during} this period the revision^{petitioner/ accused must have} repented for what he did.^{In these circumstances and in the} interest of^justice, it is^{expedientto reducethe sentenceof} imprisonment to the^{period already undergone bythe} revision petitioner/ accused^{while maintainingthefine} imposed by the trial Court.

¶39

1O. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed^confirming the conviefid. impose d by the trial Court,^{which was partly} a-llolr,'ed by the^{appellate Court.However,the sentence of}

¶40

-7

¶41

simple imprisonment for rr pcliocl of six^montl-ts for^the offence under Sections 304 .<sup>L P.C.,^{is reduced} to^{tht: period} already undergone b1' the rcr,tsion^pc titioner /^{accused while} maintainir-rg the sentence ol' [inc imposed^b1' the trial^Court

¶42

against the pctitioner/ appcllar-r t/^accrtsed.

¶43

Pending misccllaneous applicaLions, if an-v,^shallstand

¶44

closed

¶45

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 . The Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Kamareddy.

¶51

The Additional Junior Civil.Judge cum Special Judicial Magistrate at First Class (Mobile) at Kamareddy

¶52

The Station House Officer, Machareddy police Station, Nizamabad District.

¶53

The Superintendent, District Jail, Nizamabad.

¶54

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

¶55

One CC to SRI SRINIVASA IUURTHY CHEEDELLA, Advocate tOpUCl

¶56

Two CD Copies

kam

&.1

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510912023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2024 of 2011

¶64

TAT o
..-.11
q n\I 6)
f \ur Lt,''-t -}.
'l
t. at
d
+
* Y'.t
D t- t-:
a.r-

¶65

THE CRIMINAL REVISlON CASE IS DISMISSED

¶66

L ?A!"-, s{tti}g'

Gundelly Mallesh v. the State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundelly Mallesh v. the State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.K.Rajeswar Rao,Hyd and 2 Otrs Vs Public Prosecutor,Hyd and Another

G.Rajendra Kumar Vs M.Durga Malleshwari and 3 Others

A.Ananda Reddy Vs the State of a.P., and Another

Ambati Venkateshwar Reddy, Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Madini Philips , Philip Vs the State of A.P.

Sri G.Yesupadam Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Its P.P and Anohters