Partly allowed

Gobba Ravinder Reddy, R.R.District v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., Hyderabad

Telangana HC9 Oct 2023CRLRC/627/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision opposing dismissal of an appeal against a conviction for an offence under Section 304-A IPC relating to rash and negligent driving, the High Court dismissed the revision. The appellant was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment, partially set off against remand, and the sentence was later reduced to the period already undergone due to mental agony.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed; however, the sentence imposed upon the appellant was reduced to the period of detention already undergone.

Gobba Ravinder Reddy, R.R.District Vs the State of a.P… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The AppellanuAccused was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the Hon'ble High Court in CrI.RC.MP.No. 996 of 2012 in Crl.RC.No. 62 7 of 2012 dated 17.04.2012.

¶2

[^32es ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 627 OF 2012

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 &⁴⁰¹ of Cr.P.C.,^againstthe Judgment daled 12.04.2012 madeⁱⁿ Crl.A.No.¹¹² of^{2010on the file of the Courtof} the lV Additional District Judge^(ll Fast Track Court), Nalgonda^{preferred againstthe} Order passed in C.C.No. 535 of 2006 dated 26.07.2010^{on the file of the Courtof the} Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gobba Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Narsi Reddy, Age:^{46 years, Occ: Auto Driver} R/o. Bharath Nagar, Uppal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶11

...Petitioner/Appel lanUAccused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P., Rept by the Public Prosecutor, High Court^Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondents/Com^plainant

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP. NO: 996 OF²⁰¹²¹

¶16

Petition under Section 397^(1)of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt maybe} pleased to suspend the sentence imposed in Calendar Case No. 535^{of 2006 on} the file of the Principal Junior Civil^J udge-cum-J^{udicia I Magistrateof FirstClass'} Bhongir dated 26-07 -2O10 as confirmed^{in Crl.Appeal No.1'12of 2010 on the file} of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge^{(FTC) Nalgonda dated 12-04'2012} and consequently release the^{petitioner on bail, pendingdisposal of the above} Crl.RC.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Mohammad Abdul Basith (Not present)

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Vizarath Ali, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

'fi

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASE No.62?oF 20L2}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present Criminal^{Revision Case is hled against the} judgment dated 12.O4.2012 in^{Crl.A.No'1 12 of 2OlO on the hle of} the court of learned^{IV AdditionalDistrict Judge (II Fast Track} Court)atNalgonda(forshort,..theappellateCourt")inconfirming the^judgment dated^{26.O7.2O1Oin C'C'No'535of 2006 on the hle} oftheCourtoflearnedPrincipalJuniorCivilJudge,atBhongir (for short, "the trial^Court").

¶24

No representation^{on behalf of the petitioner' Heard} Mr. Vizarath Ali,^{learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor appearing} for respondent state.^{Perused the record'}

¶25

The brief facts of^{the case are that on 3O'04'2006 one} Dhara Shankaraiah,^{his wife and other family members left to} visit Goddess Renuka^{YellammaTemple, situated at Bhongirby} hiring an Auto^{bearing No.AP23T 7006' While returning from the} said Temple after^{reaching Kondamadugumettu,near-apetrol} bunk, the driver^{of the Auto drove it in a rash and negligent} manner and lost^{control.As a result, the Auto turned turtleand} the wife^6-f '€hankaraiah^{namely Varamma} 9u9tai19{^lefere

¶26

¶27

injuries to her both eyes and died on the spot. The other relatives travelling in the Auto also sustained injuries. On receipt of the said complaint, the Station House Officer, P.S. Bibinagar filed charge sheet in Cr.No.69 of 2006 against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections.337 and 304-4' of LP.C. and Sections.3/181 and 177 of the M.V. Act.

¶28

The case was taken on hle by the trial Court, against the accused for the offences under Sections.337 and 304-A of I.P.C. and Sections.3/181 and 177 of the M.V. Act. The trial Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2010 in C.C.No.535 of 2006 found the petitioner/ accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The remand period, if any, already undergone by the petitioner was set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Further, the accused was found not guilty for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. and Sections. 3/181 and lZ7 of the M.V. Act and accordingly, he was acquitted under Section 2SS(i) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

¶29

The lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2012 in Crl.A.No.112 of 2OlO dismissed the Appeal by Tg[ryq4g lhe

¶30

¶31

c''

¶32

judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing^{the same,the} petitioner preferred the Revision

¶33

As per the grounds^{raised in the Revision, the petitioner} contended that the^{tria-l Court as well as the appellateCourt,} erroneously^{passedthe impugned judgments,without taking into} consideration the^{medical report filed by the petitioner and} without assigning^{properreasons. Therefore,prayed to set aside} the impugned^judgment.

¶34

7 . Learned Assistant^{PublicProsecutor submittedthat the} trial Court as^{well as the appellate Court, by appreciating the oral} and documentary^{evidence in properperspective,rightlypassed} the impugned^{judgments. Therefore, submits 'thatthe} interference from^{this Court is unwarranted'}

¶35

The trial Court^{on behalf of respondent examined PWs'1 to} gandmarkedExs.PltoPg.onbehalfofthepetitioner,examined DWl and marked^{Ex D1. Duringthe course of evidence, PWs' 1 to} 4 who were^{complainant,injured and eye witnessesrespectively} identified the^{petitioner/ accused as driverof the crime vehicle, at} the time of^{the accident. All of themcategoricallystated that the} at the time of accident'^E'xP2, auto was€Flven^bY the Petitioner \ \

¶36

¶37

MVI report marked through Motor Vehicle Inspector, also mentioned the petitioner as driver of crime vehicle

¶38

DWI deposed that he boarded the auto on 30.04.2006 to go to Hyderabad. The accident occurred when a car was proceeding in front of the auto and all of a sudden the driver of the car applied sudden brake. To avoid the accident, the driver of the auto a-lso applied sudden brake, as a result, the auto turned turtle and he received internal injuries on his stomach. This version was found to be quite unbelievable as the petitioner himself deposed in his cross examination that there were about six passengers before he boarded the auto. If really the accused was also one of the passengers of the auto and sustained injuries in the accident, he would have lodged a complaint before the police and the prosecution would have cited him as witness, instead of accused.

¶39

lO. The prosecution examined Medical Officer-pW7, who treated PW2 and the accused. She deposed that she examined PW2 and the accused on 30.04.20O6 and found no external injuries on them. The medical evidence clearly proved that the accused had not sustained any injuries, in the alleged agciden! "- and he was not referred to Hospital. ,/ I

¶40

¶41

PWl deposed that the^{accused drove the auto at highspeed} in a negligent manner^{and the auto turned turtle. PWs.2 to 4 also} deposed in the^{same lines. Nothing was elicited from their cross-} examination, to disprove^{the rash and negligentdriving of the} accused. As^per ExP2,^{MVI report and the evidenceof PWS, the} accident has not occurred^{due to any mechanical defects of the} crime vehicle. In^{the absence of the accusedsetting up any} defence, denying^{his rash and negligentdriving and in view of} corroborative and^{convincingoral and documentar5revidence} adduced by the^{prosecution,the prosecution provedthe guilt of} the accused for^{the offence underSection304-A of I'P'C'}

¶42

In view of the^{convincing and corroborativeevidenceof the} prosecution witnesses^{with regard to the identityof the accused,} the trial court held^{that the accusedwas the driver of the auto,} at the time of accident.

¶43

Moreover, no^{documentaSrevidencewas adducedto prove} that the accused^{is punishablefor the offence under Section 337} of I.P.C. The trial Court^{further observed that just because the} accused had not^{producedthe drivinglicense beforethe Court, it} can\ot be held that^{the prosecution had establishedthe guilt of} _ the atcused for the^{ollesceunder Sections.3/181 and 177 of tle}

¶44

¶45

M.V. Act. Therefore, upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentar5r evidence, the trial Court rightly passed the impugned judgment.

¶46

Upon on appeal bearing preferred, the appellate Court observed that PWs.l to 4, who were the direct witnesses to the incident consistently supported the case of the prosecution on material aspects as well as the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused in causing the accident. Further, held that Exs.p5 and P9 coupled with evidence of PW6 also established that the death of Varamma was the cause of the accident and dismissed the appeal.

¶47

In the present case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the offences under Section. 3O4A of I.P.C., which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.p.C.

¶48

There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered judgments of the Courts below and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

¶50

17 . However, as the petitioner, suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is hereby reduced to the period of detention already undergone by him under Section 428 of Cr.P.C

¶51

Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

¶52

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUT(82ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// v

¶54

To,

¶55

SECTION OFFICER

¶56

The lV Additional District Judge (ll Fast Track Court), Natgonda. (with records)

¶57

The Principal Junior Civit Judge, Bhongir.

¶58

The Superintendent, District Jail, Natgonda.

¶59

One CC to Sri. MOHAMJ\IAD ABDUI BAS|TH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

Two CCs to the Pubtic Prosecutor, High Court for the StLte of telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶61

Two CD Copies

BGV/NJB

R-

(

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911012023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.627 of 2012

-.':-'-
( ;'i
/1
(, 2 E Flii r[;{ |., {
* -.)..,i/
u /

¶70

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶71

q.ocrt <sup>c-- =r*-rv'

Gobba Ravinder Reddy, R.R.District v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobba Ravinder Reddy, R.R.District v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., Hyderabad

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

T.Pramod Kumar, Nampally, Hyderabad Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Otrs

Peruri Santhosh, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District Vs the State of A.P. Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

Mohammed Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

P.Nagaraju Vs the State of Ap., through the P.P and 3 Others

Mohammed Amjad Kahn Vs the State of A.P.

B.Teekaram Singh Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers