Dismissed

Elageleti Ram Babu v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp Thr., Sho., Kodad P.S

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023CRLRC/52/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision filed to challenge the conviction and sentence of a driver for rash and negligent driving causing death under Section 304-A IPC, dismissing the appeal as trial and appellate courts rightly appreciated the evidence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Elageleti Ram Babu Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE^{FOURTEENTHDAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TFTREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THEHONOURAALE^{SRIJUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶5

CRIMIN AL REVISION CASE^NO:52 F 2012

¶6

criminal Revision case^{filed und€r section)39714}1of cr.P.cagainstthe} Judgement made in crl.A.No.26^{of 2011 on the fi|e of the ll Additionalsessions} Judge, Nalgonda at^{suryapetin cc.No.62of 2O06, on the file of theJudicial} Magistrate of First Class Kodad,^{NalgondaDistrictdated14-O2-2011'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

ELAGELETI RAM AABU,^{S/o. Subba Rao,aged 26 years, Lorry Driver,R/o'} Vemulapally Village, Kanchikacharla^{Mandal, Krishna District.}

¶9

...Petitioner/Appellant

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF A.P. Through^{Station House Officer, Kodad RyralP'9',} Natgonda repby its Prblic^{Prrosecutor,High Courl of A.P', Hyderabad'}

¶12

...RespondenUComplainant

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRI R SRIOHAR}

¶14

Counsel forthe Respondent:^{ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶15

The Court made the following^OROER:

¶16

j It j i

¶17

THE HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶18

CRIDNNAL REVISION CASE No.52 OF 2OL2

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/appellant aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short, "the appellate court") against the order dated 14.O2.2011in C.C.No.62 of 2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodak (for short, "the trial court").

¶21

Heard Mr.R.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on 2g.12.2OO5 at g:OO am the complainant Pavurala Upendra lodged a complaint with police stating that on the same day in the early morning as usual himself and Karamaneni Krishna Murthy left their village to attend their work and were proceeding on their bicycles and when they reached Ramapuram cross-road at about 6:00 am one lorry bearing No.AP- l6-TU-O40O carne from their opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and

¶23

¶24

dashed against the bicycle of Krishna Murthy^{and ran over him,} due to which IGishna Murthy sustained crush^{injuries and he} was immediately admitted to. hospital and he succumbed^to, injuries. On enquiry the complainant came to^{know that the} name of the driver as Elagaleti Ram Babu.^{On receipt of the} complaint, Sub-Inspector of Police^{registered a case in Cr.No.176} of 2OO5 under Section 304-4 of Indian^{Penal Code and liled} charge sheet. Thereafter, a case in^{C.C.No.62of 2OO6 was} registered on the file of the trial court.

¶25

The trial court record reveals that^{prosecution examined} PW1 to PWS witnesses and got marked Ex.Pl^{to P6. Nonewas} examined on behalf of defence and no document^marked.

¶26

On due consideration of the oral and^documentar5l evidence, the trial Court passed the Judgment^{dated l4.O2.2OlL} and convicted the petitioner/appellant^{and sentenced to undergo} simple imprisonment for a^period of^{one year for the offence} under Section 304-A of Indian^{PenalCodeand the remand period} of the accused is set off under Section^{428 Cr .P.C.}

¶27

Aggrieved by the said Judgment of the trial^{Court, the} petitioner/ appellant preferred an Appeal before the^appellate court and the leamed Judge vide Judgment^{dated 3O.12.2Ollin}

IiI i

I I I

Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2Ol I dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad in C.C.No.62 ol 2OO6 dated 14.O2.2Oll. The petitioner/appellant is found gr:itty of the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and the sentence of simple imprisonment one year is confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is frled.

¶32

lrarned counsel for the petitioner/ appetlant contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, erroneously passed the impugned judgments without properly appreciating the evidence in proper perspective manner and without assigning proper reasons. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned Judgments.

¶33

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, rightly passed the impugned Judgments. Therefore, submits that the interference from this Court is unwarranted.

¶34

The main contention of the petitioner/appellant is that the Judgment of the trial court is contrary to law and the trial court

¶35

¶36

ought to have seen that the^prosecution witrresses^PWs. 1 to³ examined are interested witnesses and cannot be relied^{upon and} the appellate court erred in confirming the order of the trial court. The trial court ought to have seen that the scene of offence is a busy road with tralhc and there is every possibility of^the deceased being confused while riding the cycle. The trial^court ought to have seen that on tlre date of the accident it^was still dark in the morning and the deceased might not^haveobserved the movement of other rrehicles, as such the accident might^have taken place. The trial court ought to have seen that^no independent witnesses were examined who were^present at^the scene of offence.

¶37

It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that^the Iindings recorded by the trial court are^perverse, illegal^and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence.

¶38

1 I . A perusal of material available on record would^{show that} the matter pertains to the year, 2Ol2 and this Court^{vide order} dated O6.01.2012 suspended the sentence of^{imprisonment,} pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case by granting bail

¶39

¶40

to the petitioner/appellant on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶41

In order to establish the case of the prosecution the trial court ex'amined PWs.1 to 5 on behalf of the prosecution. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs. I to 5. Among them, PW. I is the defactocomplainant as well as eye-witness to the alleged road accident and PW2 is circumstantial witness. The eyidences of PWs. I and 2 proved that the accused was rash and negligent in driving the crime vehicle-lorry and the incident took place due to the negligent act of the accused and it is also established by the prosecution. PW.3 Panch witness, in his evidence he deposed that he notice one lorry and one cycle in damaged condition and also the dead body of the deceased Krishna Murthy, the scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama was conducted by the Police in his presence. PW4 Doctor, in his evidence he deposed that he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is due to multiple injuries all over the body. As per the evidence of pWs.3 and 4 it appears that the deceased died due to road accident.

¶42

¶43

j !

¶44

PWS Investigating Ofhcer established that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.

¶45

The contention of the petitioner/appellant that PWs. I to 3' are interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution cannot be considered as the prosecution proved the guilt of tlee accused beyond reasonable doubt after thoroughly examining the witnesses. The driver of ttre crime vehicle has to be more vigilant on tralhc prone areas all the time.

¶46

Therefore, the trial court rightly held that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 is consistent, cogent and corroborative with each other and found the petitioner/appellant guilty of the alleged offence without any doubt. In the present case on hand, all the witnesses have thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, after appreciating the oral and documentar5r evidences in proper perspective, the trial court rightly passed the^judgment dated 14.O2.2O11 in C.C.No.62 of 2006. However, on an appeal being preferred, thereby, the appellate court held that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner/appellant drove the crime vehicle-lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, who was proceeding on a bicycle at the scene of

¶47

¶48

¶49

offence. Therefore, held that the conviction^recorded by^{the trial} court does not suffer from any irregularities and^{opinedthat the} sentence against the petitioner/appellant^{is quite reasonable and'} dismissed the appeal 'ride^{judgmentdated} 30.l2.20llⁱⁿ Criminal'Appeal No.26 of^{2O 1 1} . In^{view of the concurrent findings} arrived at by the trial court as well as the^appellate court,^{I find} no reason to interfere with the^{jurdgment passed} by the^learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad in C.C.No.62 of 2006 dated l4.O2.20ll, which was conltrmed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet in Cr1.A.No.26 of 2Ol 1 dated 30. 12.201 1.

¶50

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stards dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶51

closed.

¶52

SD/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUWWSTRAR

¶53

,/TRUE COPY//

¶54

SECTION^OFFICER

¶55

To, 1. The ll Additional^{Sessions Judge' Nalgonda.at Suryapet}

¶56

Z. The Judicial^{Magistrate of First Class at Kodad'}

¶57

One CC to^{SRl.R SRIDHAR Advocate[OPUC]}

¶58

one^{CC to SRl. pueiicPRosECUToR' Highbourt of Telangan' Hyderabad'} loPUcl

¶59

Two^{CD CoPies}

ls."t'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 410912023

1 \1E STAr €
(
z
o)e
o 1 3 tEB 202[
t

¶64

ORDER

¶65

CRLRC.N o.52 of 2012

¶66

DISMISSING TtIE CRL.R.C.

Elageleti Ram Babu v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp Thr., Sho., Kodad P.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Elageleti Ram Babu v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp Thr., Sho., Kodad P.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Danam, Rc Puram, Medak District Vs T.Srinivas, Medak District and Another, Rep.by P.P, High Court

Thurpu Nirmala and 8 Others Vs K.Sathyanarayana and Another

Punreddy Narender Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Bade Sha , Badesab , Venkateshwarlu Vs the State of A.P. Rpe., by Its Pp

Mohd Yakub Pasha Vs the State of A.P. Re., by Its Pp

Dasari Venkata Rajam Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P