Partly allowed

Sudula Mallesh v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023CRLRC/296/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against the judgment confirming conviction for death caused by rash and negligent driving, the High Court partially allowed the revision. The court reduced the imprisonment from six to three months and enhanced the fine to Rs. 10,000 for offenses under Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 of IPC.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced from six to three months and fine increased to Rs. 10,000 in default of 15 days' imprisonment for each count.

Sudula Mallesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³²⁰⁸ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA}

¶6

RIMINAL R VISION CASE^{NO: 296 OF 201}

¶7

Criminal Revision under Section^{397 and 40'1 aggrieved by the Judgment} dated 10.02.2010 in Crl.A.No.1^{of 2010 of lll Additional Sessions Judge(FTC),} Asifabad,^preferred by the Judgment^{dated 1O-12.2OO9in C.C.No.451/2OO4 of} the Judicial Magistrate of^{First Class, Asifabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sudula Mallesh, S/o Sambaiah,^{27 years, AutoDriver FJo ChinnaBudha} Village Bellampalli Mandal.

¶10

...PETITIONERYAPPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh,^{Representedby its Public Prosecutor'High} Court, Hyderabad.

¶13

RESPONDENTRESPON DENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

CRLRCMP. NO: 422OF²⁰¹⁰

¶15

Petition under Section^{397 (1) Cr-P.C prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be} pleased to suspend the execution of^{sentence passed in crl.A.No. 1/2010 of lll} Additonal sessions Judge,^{(FTC) Asilabadand release the petitioner on bail,} pending Crl.RC

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. C. SHARANREDDY}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRl. MUTHYALA MURALIDHAR'} ADDITIONAL PUBLIC^PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the^{following: OROER}

¶19

THE Ht IIi'OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE S UDTIA

¶20

CRI ltlINAL REVISION CASE No.296 of 2O tO

¶21

ORDER1

¶22

This Cl rninal Revision Case is liled agtrinst^I Ir,: .Judgment passed bv I r, Learned Ill-Additional Sess orts ..t tclg: (F"lC), Asifabad drtr C 10.O1.2O10 in Crl.A.No.1 of 2oi0, cc,:Lfirrning the Judgment r: the learned First Class Jtrdi,;ial Mz gistrate, Asifabad drtr I 1O.12.2OO9 in C.C.No.451 of 2'.OO4.

¶23

InitizLll' , 3.C.No.451 of^'2OO4 was filed .rgairrs t he rcvision petitionerT a,: l sed for thc offence punishalrle Llr r: .'r- Sections 337, 338 anr^, iO4-A of IPC, for causing death of c t:. r'a:;ed No.I & 2 and al;o :r using injuries to inmates of arrto

¶24

Tl-re br,:l facts of the case are that on'27.Olt.^()0+, P.W.1 lodged ,r co: rprlaint zrgainst the accused stat.ing tlrrrt he along with his dzLuL h ter and^(irzrnd-son aged abou 1¹⁴ ,":rr boarded an auto bea irrg No. AP 10 BH T/R 5117 at It[: Caram and proceeding t( 'ards Bellampalli. While they ,vcrt: rr':ceeding to Bellampall , rr)^(lriver of the auto driven thr'2uto in rash rrnd negligert .rzr n er with eL high speed ancl clas rerl to L N':em tree bv losing c ot tr ol over thc au[o. As a result ol u,h ir r, he uuto

¶25

¶26

was damaged and deceased No. I died on thc spot and deccascd No.2 died after 10 days whilc undergoing rreatment and all other inmates of the auto were injured. The complaint was given against the driver of the auto namely Mallesh. Based on the complaint a case was registered in Cr. No.65 of 2OO4 under Section 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

¶27

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P16,

¶28

The triai Court considering the oral evidence of witnesses and also the Exs.Pl to P16 convicted the accused by imposing Simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Further, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for the period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.50O/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court held that P.W. 1 identified the accused as the driver of the auto before the Court, as such there is no necessity of conducting Test Identification paradc and the defacto-

¶29

¶30

complailtaltt \'as selni-conscious after the Lcc idcr t.^..he Iirst appellatc Cror rl also hetd that the accused ,"r,rs drivi 1s :lte ilurc) on NationrLl t i1.,hrvay, but turned to the left s dt: of tl.e roaci :rnd dashccl tht. I er:rn trec, as a result of ri,hich [$,o .l]rnatcs \ /cre died. Mt rely ,e,)ause he did not sustain injur,, ir cirnnol be sirid that he..r,a:; :^'i.zing the auto u,ith a lor,r' spced Tlie p Ws 5,6 {}, g are the injrrrr C witnesses. All of them statcd thilt. ar:cident u,as occurrecl d -,rr: to rash atrd negligent driving of the trutr, clrir,.cr. They zrlso :it,,^,e I that in spite of their instrltctii)nr;. ilriver ltad driven thc irr,r c in a rash manner and lost co]ttr()l o,(lr the:l.lto and daslterl 1, ){eem trer:.^'l-hcy also stated th rt rhcpllh t was a rainy scrrson, tl rere was no rain as on the da[c ,>f ,lc :icl,:nt rut<l the zruto r,,,zr not overloaded. Accident rvzrs oc trrrred a1 :1 distance of I si yards from the Kannala gat ) on rlre llational Highway ancl there is tro other vehicle seel l ()ve r tht, rough sketch, : s s;u, h it cannot be said that he tur rec[ t]re ve:riclc to avert an\ majr r accident.

¶31

Thc dr:fe t1,::e of the accused is that he was drivir,q Lllc alrto very slow,ly, br t lhe trial Court did not believe his I,e n;ion as the se',,eral pcrso: i wr:re injurcd u,hen the auto ,lashe:. thr Necm tree. In tlris ca ,c, the narrre of the accused \ ras monti,_ le< in tl.re F.I.R anci hr: r.ers identified by the injured persons (:uring thc

¶32

¶33

trial. Therefore, the appellate Court also con{irmed the Judgment of the trial court in Toto.

¶34

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused relied upon the decision o[ the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhala;chond.ra Wamq.n Pathe Vs. Sto.te oJ Maharashtral dated 20.11.1967 1967, in which it was held as

¶35

follows:

¶36

....The seueity of the sentence must depend to o great ertent on tLe degree of callousness in the conduct of the acatsed.

¶37

.... Ciminal negligence is the gross and anlpable neglect or failure to exercise that reosonable and proper core and precousion to guard agoinst injury either to tLrc public generollg or to an indiuiduol in partianlar, ruhich hauing regard to all the ciranmstances out of tuhich the charge has arisen, it utas the imperatiue duty of tLe acansed person to haue adopted. Negligence is an omrbsion to do soemthig which a reasonable mary guided upon tLnse considerations which ordinaily regulate tLe conduct of human affairs, uould do, or doing something uthich prudent and reasonable man would not do.

¶38

The learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that for the offence under Section 3O4-A of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment is not must. Therefore, requested the Court to modify the said Judgment and to impose the hne amount. He

'^{LawSuit(SC) 31 I}

\ \

)

.rlso rc icr L lrrn the decision of the Hon'ble Sup.r::ne Cortr-t in tlrc czrsc M-ohanta Lo.l Saha Vs. Stcrtr: of ttr/est Bengal2 da|.f(l 27.t)S 1968.

¶43

Adn it^.r ily, the erccused is an auto driver. l'he acci<ient \vas oc('urr(:r ,lue to his rash and negligent dnvirre ancl all the inmate:; IriLr :;ustained injuries. Ex.p4 to p9 zu t: thr: nound certificl tc:r : !:l lix.Pl0 is the PME report ol the jt:ceased rvho ilicd in tllc a.:cidcnt. Admittedly, accident u,as r:cctrrred orr 27-O9.2OO,+. llre conviction was imposed by the [rial Court in the vcit;- 2t)0 ) and i[ wzrs confirmed by the first aJrl::llatc Courr in thc 1,rrar ll ) LO. Frorn then onwards it was cendi-r1: bclore [l.ris Courl [r>r rr[> r.t I I3 years. No doubt, under Se<:tir,n 304_A, thc scntcnc(,^jr; r o. tnandatory. trither the fine or imlrosolrment is mandaton' r: both of them can be impose,i. Cotr,idering the gravity of tl e olfence, both the Courts conout r(:ntl/ follnd accused grri: ., lor the offence under Section 304_ri, 33 / & ll3g ol IPC. Th s lrrurt fincls it just and reason:rble tc mcdify the se ntonci' ol ir rl ,risonmer-rt rmposed against the accrts;ed from six months to I )t ee months for the offence punistr:rblc under Scction .10.1 r ,rf IPC and Iurthcr to pay a fin: ol Rs. r,030/ for thi: offt:rrct, rr rr t:r Section 338 of IpC and al:;o to pr; y it finc. of r I968 La\vsrril i ;( )72

¶44

¶45

¶46

Rs.5,000/ (Total hne amount of^Rs.10,000/ )^{for the offence} under Section 337 of IPC, in default to suffer^Simple imprisonment for the period of 15 days on each count.^The remand period, if any, shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

¶47

In the result, the^present Criminal^{RevisionCase is partly} allowed upholding the conviction^passed by^{the hrst appellate} Court, but the sentence of^{imprisonmentimposed against the} revision petitioner/accused is reduced from^{six months to three} months for the offence punishable under^{Section3O4-A IPC and} further to pay a hne of Rs.5,O0O/-^{for the offenceunder Section} 338 of IPC and also to^pay a flne of^Rs.S,OOO /^{-(Total hne of} Rs. 1O,OO0/-) for the offence under^{Section 337 of IPC, in default} to suffer simple imprisonment for^{15 days on eachcount.The} remand period, if any, shall be set of under^{Section428 of} Cr.P.C.