Dismissed

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

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023CRLRC/658/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against an appellate judgment that partly allowed an appeal in a rash and negligent driving case involving death of two persons, upholding the conviction under Section 304-A IPC and the appellate court's modified sentence.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 304-A IPC passed by the appellate court.

Bade Sha , Badesab , Venkateshwarlu Vs the State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP: The Petitioner/Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated: 2310412012, in CRLRC.Mp.No.1041 ot 2O12 in CRL RC.No. 658 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINALREVISION CASE NO: 658 OF 20'12

¶7

Revision filed under Section 3971401 of CrPC to set aside/against the Judgment dt.25.11.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.80 ot 2011 on the file of lll Additional District Judge at Gadwal Mahaboobnagar District by allowing the revision in the interest of justice.

¶8

Between:

¶9

BADE SHA BADESAB VENKATESHWARLU, S/o.Chinna Savaranna, R/o. Chinna Chintarula Mllage, Dharur Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar.

¶10

...REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A.P. rep., by its Pubtic^prosecutor, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad, through Police Station, Dharur Vide Crime No.2912006.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶14

l.A. NO:2 OF 2012(CRLRCMP.^{NO:1O41 OF 20121}

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be} pleased to enlarge the petitioner /Accused on bail by suspending^judgment passed in CrlA.No.80/2011 dt.25-11-2O11 on the file of the lll Additional Judge at-Gadwal Mahaboobnagar District.

¶16

Gounsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl T C KRISHNAN

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG)

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE^{E.V.VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASENo.658OF 2OL2}

¶20

ORDIR:

¶21

.The present Criminal^{Revision Case is filed aggrieved} by the Judgment dated^{25.11.2011 in CriminalAppeal} No.8O of 2011 on^{the file of III AdditionalDistrict& Sessions} Judge, (Fast Track Court),^{Gadwal(for short, "the appellate} Court") partly confirming^{the conviction and sentence of} rigorous imprisonment^{for a period of six (6) months and to} pay a fine of Rs.2,OOO/-^{(Rupees Two thousandonly), in} default to suffer^{simpleimprisonment for a period of three} (3) months for the offence^{under section304-A I'P'C'} imposed against the^{revision petitioner-accusedby the} learned Judicial^{Magistrateof First Class, Gadwal (for short'} "the trial court"), in^{C.C.No.22of 2OO7, dated 1O'O8'2011'}

¶22

Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan,^{learned counsel forthe} petitioner and Sri Yizarath^{Ali, the learned AssistantPublic} Prosecutor appearing^{for the State.}

¶23

The case of the^{prosecution inbrief is that on} 30.03.2006 at^{11:OO a.m. P.W. Ilodged Ex'Pl complaint}

¶24

¶25

before Dharur Police Station alleging that on 30.03.2006 morning P.W. 1 went to Gadwal and was returning to his Village Medipally in a^jeep bearing No.AP-15-W/6171. Along with P.W. I, some other passengers also boarded in the^jeep. After^'crossing Chintarevula Village at Mudireddy garden road turning, the driver of the^jeep drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, resulting which the driver lost control over the^jeep and went towards right side of the road and hit the trees, due to which, tJle^jeep turned turtle and P.Ws. I to 3 and P.W.6, who were travelling in the said jeep sustained injuries and deceased Nos. 1 died on tJle spot and deceased No.2 succumbed to injuries at Kurnool hospital. The petitioner is the driver of the said^jeep.

¶26

During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.l to 15 were examined and Exs.P. 1 to P. 16 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner/accused No.1 no oral or documentar5r evidence was adduced.

¶27

The petitioner herein was tried as accused A1 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, ln C.C.No.22 of 2OO7 for the offence punishable under Sections

¶28

¶29

i I I ! i I I

¶30

304-A, 338 and^{337 of IPC. The learned Magistrate having} assessed the entire^{evidence found the petitionerguilty for} the offences^{punishableunderSections 304-A, 338 and 337} of IPC and accordingly^{convictedand sentencedhim to} suffei rigorous imprisonment^{for a periodof six (6) months} and to^pay a^{frne of Rs.2,OOO/- (RupeesTwo thousand only)} in default of^payment of^{fine to suffer simple imprisonment} for a period of three^{(3) months for the offence undersection} 304-A IPC. He is further^{sentenced tosuffer rigorous} imprisonment for a^{period of three (3) months and to pay a} hne of Rs.1,OOO/-^{(Rupees One thousand only) in default of} paJment of fine to suffer^{simpleimprisonment for a period of} one (1) month for^{the offence under Section 338 of IPC' He is} further sentenced to^{suffer rigorous imprisonment for a} period of one month and^{to pay a fine of Rs'SOO/-(Rupees} five hundred only) in^{default of payment of hne to suffer} simple imprisonment for^{a period ot hfteen (15) days for the} offence under Section^{337 oftPC. Allthe above said} sentences shall run^{concurrently.Totat fine is Rs 3,5OO/-'}

¶31

Aggrieved by the^{said judgment dated lO O8'2O11, the} petitioner preferred Criminal^{Appeal No' 8O of 2Ol Ion the}

¶32

¶33

hle of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge^at Gadwal and the learned Sessions Judge^{partly allowed the} appeal modifying the frndings of the learned trial Court by judgment dated 25. lL.2Ol1 and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against tJle petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC is confrrmed and conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 337 IPC are set aside. The fine amount paid by the petitioner in respect of offences punishable under Sections 338 and 337 IPC is ordered to be returned to the petitioner. The trial Court is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to the petitioner for serving sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by petitioner/accused No.l.

¶34

As seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, who were were ocular cum injured witnesses, it is clear that they travelling 1n the jeep for a considerable time before the incident and they identified that the petitioner was the driver at the relevant point of time. Since, the witnesses had the opportunity to observe and identify the petitioner; the

¶35

¶36

contention of the petitioner that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the driver is not accepted. As far as invoking the principle of doctrine of necessit5r under Section 81 of IPC is concerned, in Ex.Pl it is not stated by P.W. I that a tipper came opposite to the crime vehicle and the petitioner turned the jeep all of a sudden to avoid collusion with tipper. Hence, principle of doctrine of necessit5r cannot be invoked when ttre driver fails to exercise proper cane and caution while driving the vehicle at the road turnings.

¶37

The contention of the petitioner is that the prosecution has not examined the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased P.Chennappa, and the Doctors, who issued wound certificates of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 under Exs.Pl2 to 15. Since the prosecution has not examined the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased P.Chennappa, it is held that the prosecution has not proved Ex,Pl l post mortem report of the deceased P.Chennappa and wound certificates of P.Ws.l to 3 and 6 in terms of the provisions of Evidence Act.

¶38

(;

¶39

As seen from the evidence of P.W.11, Doctor, who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of tl.e deceased No.1 Narsimlu issued Ex.PS post mortem report, in which it is clearly mentioned that the death of the deceased is due to injuries and Ex.P8 inquest panchanama it is clear that the cause of death of the deceased Narsimlu is due to injuries sustained in road accident. As per the evidence of P.Ws.l to 3 and P.W. 15 and Ex.P7-rough sketch and photographs of scene of offence it is clear that the^jeep was turned turfle and went out of road at the scene of offence. As per Ex.P9Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, it is clear that there is damage to the front portion of the^jeep, it can be said that the petitioner had not exercised proper care and caution while driving the vehicle, resulting which he lost control over the vehicle and went out of road ald fell down. This fact is sufficient to come to a conclusion that there is rash or negligence on the part of the accused, which resulted the accident and tr.r,o persons lost their lives in the accident.

¶40

The evidence o[ P.Ws.1 to 3 is corroborating with one *^{another regarding the manner of accidentand also identity}

¶41

¶42

of the petitioner being the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident

¶43

There is no ambiguity or any doubt with regard to the identity of the petitioner being the person responsible for the accident and he was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution established the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-4 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶44

While modifying the sentence the appellate court has given cogent and con'rincing reasons. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the appellate court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶46

dismissedsD/- M.RAMANA^KRISHN DEPUTY REGISTBAR / /TTRUE^COPY// sEcrroN &lr,"t*

¶47

To, 1 The lll Additional^{District Judge at Gadwal Mahaboobnagar District} 2 inl ;i;i;; H;"e^{officer, Policestation'Dharur'--} 3 ji,+3El?$,'.?catHvderabadroUr| 4 :*:::.("?s"i:s:autu Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

EWJ

DATED:1410912023

ORDER

CRLRG.No.658 of 2012

1 HE SI4 14:
c
o5
2 3 sE[ 2023 ()
{+

t-r_f-S'FETCP, r.\r

¶55

THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED

¶56

8@ w- 6lCo

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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