Partly allowed

Syed Jaffar, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC18 Jan 2023CRLRC/46/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Case involves a lorry driver convicted of rash and negligent driving causing death under Section 304-A IPC. The High Court confirmed the conviction by the Sessions Judge but found that 22 years had lapsed, necessitating a sentence reduction to six months with set-off for time already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to six months imprisonment with set-off for time already undergone.

Syed Jaffar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2023)

[³²⁵¹ 1

t I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 46 OF 2007

¶9

Criminal Revision Case Under Section 397 (1) & 401 of Crl.P.C Against the Judgment in Crl.A. No: 4 of 2006, dated 7l'1212006 against the Petitioner, partly confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial passed in CC.No. 96 of 2005 dated 05/01/2006.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Syed Jaffar S/o Syed Jameel

¶12

...PETITIONERYAPPE LLANT/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of AP., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANT

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.46 OF 2OO7

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

The petitioner, who is a lorry driver^was convicted^{for the} offence under Section 304-A of IPC^{vide judgment in} C.C.No.96 of 2OO5 dated 05.01.2006^{passed by the Judicial} Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, which^{is conhrmed by} the Sessions Judge at Adilabad^{vide judgment in Criminal} Appeal No.4 of 2006, datecl 07.12.2006.^{Aggrieved by the} concurrent findings of guilt,^{present revision is hled by the} petitioner.

¶22

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that^{this petitioner,} who was a lorry driver, drove his lorry on 31.10.2001^{in a rash} and negligent manner while coming^{from Laxettipet side and} ran over the deceased while she^{was crossing the road. As a} result, the deceased died^{while undergoing treatment on the} very same day. The^{petitioner was arrested on O5'1 1'2OO1 and} having received the^{postmortem examinationreport that the} cause of the death^was due^{to head injury, charge sheet was}

¶23

¶24

hled for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and also for the reason of there being no medical defects in the vehicle.

¶25

Learned l\4agistrate, having examined ten witnesses and marking relevant documents found that this petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing death of the person, who was crossing the road. tearned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and imposed sentence of one year. Learned Sessions Judge, having found that the Magistrate did not commit any error in coming to conclusion of guilt, confirmed the finding of the learned Magistrate however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment for a period to eight months from one yea_r.

¶26

l,earned counsel appearing for.the petitioner vehemently argued that this is one case wherein the petitioner was wrongly conyicted for the offence under Section 304-4 of IpC. P.W. 1 and P.W.S were planted witnesses and the question of the witnesses P.Ws.l who was at the bus stand and pWS witnessing the driver of the lorry when he was sitting inside the hotel, according to their evidence, is highly improbable and

¶27

¶28

for the said reason, the petitioner has to be acquitted. Further, the deceased was in fact negligently crossing the road without even looking at the vehicles on the road, for which reason of her contributory negligencc the accident had occurred. For the said reason also, the conviction has to be reversed.

¶29

On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that both^{the Courts belowhad} committed no error in finding the^{petitioner guilty of the} offence under Section 304-A of^IPC. For^{the reason of causing} death of the deceased by driving^{the vehicle in a rash and} negligent manner, the revision^{hled by the petitioner has to be} dismissed

¶30

As seen from the record, P.W.l^{was the person who was} sitting at the bus stand and^{P.W.5was the owner of Tea Stall'} The evidence of P.W. 1 is that the lorry^{was drivenin a zigzag} manner and. ran over the^{person, who was crossingthe road.} At a place like the bus stand, the buses^{would stop and also} the people cross the road for catching^{the buses.It is for the} drivers of the vehicles to be vigilant and drive cautiously at

¶31

¶32

such places where public moment is imminent. Places such as bus stops, markets and trafftc signals, persons driving the vehicles should be vigilant since there would be moment of public and pedestrials tend to cross ttre roads at the said places.

¶33

In the instant case, the lorry was driven in a zig-zag manner and ran over the deceased who was crossing the road. Lorry went to a distance and stopped t-here and from there, petitioner allegedly fled the scene. The argument of the learned counsel that there was no opportunit5r for P.W. 1 or P.W.S to identify the driver, who was stranger and even according to the prosecution, he fled scene after committing the accident, cannot be accepted.

¶34

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has a valid point that the petitioner/driver being a sffanger and there being no test identihcation parade, tle identification in the court becomes doubtful. However, in such cases, where there is an accident which was caused leading to a death or any stranger inflicting injuries to any person would have aly

¶35

¶36

arnount of impact on the mind of a person witnessing such accident or incident. Further, such incidents leave a lasting impact and persons identifying such strangers^{who were} involveci in such acts of either causing^{accidents leadingto} death or inflicting injuries to^some other^{personswould not be} easily faded ar;tay. For the^{said reason, Ido not hnd any} inhrmity or suspicion in the^{evidenceofP.Ws.1 and 5} identilying the driver of the lorry^{who had driven the same in} such a fashion causing death^of the^deceased.

¶37

g. In the said circumstances, I do not hnd any irregularity or impropriety in the orders^{passed by both the Courtsbelow} and accordingly, conhrms the conviction^{of the petitioner for} the offence under Section 304-A of^{IPC. However, since the} incident is of the year 2OO1^ar,.d 22^{years have lapsed, this} Court deems it appropriate to reduce the^{sentence of} imprisonment to six months.

¶38

The concerned Magistrate shall cause appearance^{of the} petitioner and send him to prison to serve out the remaining

¶39

¶40

¶41

part of the sentence. Needless to say the lmpnsonment already undergone shall be given set off.

¶42

Accordingly, the Crimina_l Revision Case is partly allowed.

¶43

To,

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR secrt?orrrcen

¶46

'l . The Sessions Judge, Adilabad

¶47

One CC to SRt p VTSHNUVARDHANA REDDyAdvocate [OpUC]

¶48

Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶49

Two CD Copies

¶50

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial

JVH

HIGH COURT

KS, J

DATED: 1810112023

JUDGMENT

4;.jI',-:-=.
. -!,1, :.,., .'- i,..'.<br>! 'tu,il $11
I t t
. ;,.'.i
" .:: .i'
-.i',

¶57

CRLRC.No.46 of 2007

¶58

Partly Allowing the Crl.R.C

¶59

A
0
L
\ lL\ )

Syed Jaffar, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Jaffar, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

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

Singham Kondal and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Bathina Mohan Sandeep Vs The State of Telangana

Saud Ul Haq Vs The State of Telangana

Md.Ghouse , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Manusaran Reddy Vs Smt. Battu Vasantha

Pathem Damodher Vs The State of Telangana