Partly allowed

Manthri Lingam v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023CRLRC/913/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Revision regarding conviction for an offence under Section 304-A IPC arising from a fatal motor accident, the High Court upheld the findings of both courts below. The Court found the petitioner guilty, denied the plea of contributory negligence, and reduced the term of simple imprisonment while confirming the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of simple imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; conviction confirmed; fine upheld; criminal revision dismissed in other aspects; bail bonds cancelled.

Manthri Lingam Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

i i

¶3

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Courl dated. 21.06.2Oj2 in Crt.RC.M.p_No. 1432 Of ZOIZin Crl.R.C No.913 OF 2012.

¶4

IN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD \

¶5

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWTHREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISI ON CASE NO:913 oF 2012

¶9

i Revision fired under settion sgz & 4ol of cr.p.c., against the order dated 18.06-2012 passed in criminal Appeal No.83 of 2011 on the file of the court of the lv Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar preferred against the order dated 24.08.2011 passed in cc.N6.222 of 2009 on the fire oi the speciar .ruoiiLI Magistrate of 1st Class, (Exciie), Karimnagar.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Manthri_Lingam, S/o. Ramaiah, Agg 19 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: Driver, APSRTC. Ri./o. Goranua, Vio. Garibhiraopet, ManOai, Xartmirgi| Di;i;;i Karimnagar

¶12

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

The State o[A P Rep by its euOfic prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyde.rabad_ through Station House Officier, police Station, Karimnagar (Traffi c), Karimnagar District.

¶15

¶16

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶17

Counset for the^petition"rr SAt. J c FRANCTS

¶18

¶19

counsirr forihe Responuent:fsru VTZARATH ALr Assr puBLrc pRosEcuroR 11 I

¶20

The Court made the followingj: ORDER

¶21

I I I I i I

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.913 OF 2OL2

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Revision Casc is hlccl by the petitioner/accused under Sections 397 and 40 1 ol Criminai Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.J aggrieved by the juclqrncnt dared 18.O6.20 l2 in Criminal Appeal No.83 o[2011 on the filc ol the learned IV Adclitional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar wherein the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a perioci o[ six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,O00/-, in default to suffer sirnple imprisonment for two months for thc offence punisliable under Scction 30a A of Inciian Pcnal Code (for short 'IPCJ awarded against thc petitioner vide jr-rdgment dated 24.Oa.2Ol1 in CC No.222 of 2OO9 on the filc of the leamed Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Dxcise), Iiarimnagar was confirmed.

¶26

Heard Sri Vizarath AIi, learncd Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosccutor for Sta te / respondent. None appeared on behalf of learned counseI for the pctitioner Sri JC Francis.

¶27

Crime No. 1O I of 2008 was rcgistered try the police, Karimnagar for the offence punishable undcr Section 304-A of IPC against the pctitioner allcging that on 13 06.2008, ',r,h,le Nalumachu Venu Kumar was procecding to hrs housc on his TVS C)hamp bearing No.AP15 AH 4Zq), at 03.25 P.M . in li-ont ot'lq Baba Consultancy, the

¶28

l'ags 2 ol5

¶29

r%s

¶30

petitioner being the driver^{of APSRTCBus bcaringNo'AP1 IZ 3529oi} Sircilta Depoi camc^{in a rash arrcliregligcnlmannerr'.'rth high spceri} .urd dashecl him^{from back side due to rvhich, saici V<:uttiiumar} sustained^{grievousinjurrics and succttrr,bcdinrhe trarlsittothc} hospital. After^{completion of investigation,charge-shec( rvas filedand} tlre same^r,r,as numbcred^{as CC No.22'2of 2OO9,the learnedSpecial} Judicial Magistlatc^{(Excisc), Karim:ragar,tlpon exalninationof entirc} evidence availablc^{on recordir-r tl-re 'form of PWs. Ito 9 andExs.P1 to} P8, found the^{petitioner guilt]',conv-ted anrl sentenccd himas stated} supra.Thesaidfin<lingsrr.creconfirmedbytheleamedlVAddit'iorral Sessions Judge^(FTC) at^{Karimnagaras per judgment dated 18 06'2012} in Criminal Appeal^{No.83 of 2011.}

¶31

Aggrie ved by the^{findings of both the Courts below, the} petitioner has filed the^{prcscnt crimina.l revisicrncase contending that} both the Courts bclow^{faitcd toappreciate the evidcnce inright} perspective, faited to consider^{the contributorynegligenceon the partof} the deceased and^{rvithout there being any evidence to convict the} petitioner. On the other^{hand, learnedAssistant Public Prosccutor} contends that the^{findingsof botl-rthe courts belowdo not warrant an)'} interference of this^{Court as they were made on scrupulousevaluation} of entire evidence on^record

¶32

l'tige .] oi S

¶33

PWl is the rvife of deceased, u,ho lodgcd Dx.Pl complaint. PWs.2 and 6 are the eyewitnesscs tc the acciden t. PW3 is the photographer who had taken photos under Ex.P3. t)W4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who submitted Ex.P4 report opininll that there u'ere no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. PW5 co nducted autopsy over thc dead body of deceased under Ex.P5 opining thar due to the multiple injuries sustained in the accidcnt onlr,. thc. deceased died. PW7 is the witness for inquest and crime details iorm. PWs.8 and 9 are the Invcstigating Officers.

¶34

The occurrence of accident and death of the deceased was not disputed by the petitioner. His contention is that the deceased drove his moped in a rash and negligent manner, <Jashed the road divider but there was no involvemcnt of the crime vchiclc. So far as the Iiability of the petitioner, the evidence of PWs. 1 ernd 6 clearly established that due to the rash negligent driving ot thc. petitioner only, the accident had taken place resulting in injuries to th<: deceased. The said fact was informed to PW I over phone by PW6. Though^pW2 turned hostile, evidence of PW6 remained constant to pr()ve the guilt of the petitioner. Further, PW6 identified the petitioncr as the driver of the crime vehicle. Though thc pctitioner contendccl that by taking money flrom the heirs of deceascd, PW6 deposcd [a lse against the peti.Lioner, thc same is not provcd by rvav of cogcnt and convincing

¶35

taqe i of5

¶36

w\rr

¶37

evtclence^{by the petit-ic'ner' Thesaid [:1ctis far beyoncl i]re probzrLrilitics'} Di,iclence^{of PW8investtqatini{oillcer disclcscs the volun Lzrrily surrtnrlt:r} of the^{petitioner admittinghis mrsclr:eCof committingthc ac( idcnt'} [.'orm 54 aiso^{sh<>u'edthc petitioncr was a'ssigned the duty cn tl'rc cril:tt:} veilicle^()rr ltrai^{partit:ular GaJ'.Evidence oi PW4 MVI clearlr'rs'7621r-'11} '.hat- thr:re !'ere^{no mechallicalrielectsin the crimc vehicle'Fr-trthcr'} the criree^{velticle hit thc mopcd frr;m bar:ksideanci this fact clearl'r'} clis<:iosed^{the ra:;h and neglige rtt driving af the petifioner as' if ll-re rider} of the rnopecl^{clrovethrr sanie in a rash ancl negligentmani''er'it clrn bc} u,ithin the^{vision ol thc ctrivcr of the vehiclr:bel-rinrl it and he cal-t easilv} control the^situate

¶38

Thor-,gh [hc^{pelitionercontencled severalaspectsdenying} h is liability^{irl occurr enr:c of accident} '^{he farlcd to estabiish the same bv} aciducing^{evidencc.Furthermore'hc did not examine anybody including} himself for^{the reasonsbest knownto him'Cross-examinationoi} prosecLltioll witnesses^{did not yiet'J any positive material to disbclic'rc} the prosecutlon^case.

¶39

Taking into^{consitlcrertion all thesr: facts'both the Ccurts} belorv have^{rightlv[ound grilty of tLre petitionerand the saitl findirtgs} are sustained^{and no tntcrft:rr:nce is warranted'The groundsurgedby}

¶40

Pagc 5 of5

¶41

¶42

the petitioner do not invite this Court to intcrfe re $'i[h the well considered findings of both the Courts belou,

¶43

So far as the quantum o[ sentcnce awarded to the petitioner is concerned, from the year 2O08 i.e. for thc last about fifteen years the pctitioner has been roaming around thc Courts for defending himself by lacing mental agony and trauma. This itsetf is a sufficient ground to take a lenient view in so far as the serltence of simple imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by rhe Courts below is concerned. Therefore, the sentence of sirnple imprison ment for a period of six months imposed to the petitioner is herebl, rcducecl ro that o[ the period of imprisonment which he has alreadl, r-rndergone while upholding the fine amount awarded to him by. the rrial Court.

¶44

lO. trxcept the above modihcation in respcct of period of sentence of simple imprisonment, this criminal revision case in all other aspects is dismissed. The bail bonds of thc pctitioner shall stand cancelled. Interlocutory applications, if anv pending, shall stand d ismissed.

¶45

i SD/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI
I DEPUTY REGISTRAR
i . trfRUE COPY// .',u'?'
I
To, I I sEcTtoN oFFtcER
1. ThellV Additional Sessioris Judoe at Karimnaoar.
2. Thelspecial Judiciat Magistraretf Firrt CijsJiElcise Courtl Karimnagar.
3: The!Station Distiict: " House offic6r. I xarimnagar lTraffiiip"li* St;ii6", Xaririrgar
4l Twd CCs to the Public prbsecutor, High Court for the State oF Telangana at
Hyderabad (OUT) |
b.5. Two gne CD q9 Copies to SRl. J C FRANC|S, l Advocate [OpUC]

PR ri< I

i I t, i HIGH OURT

I I : I DATED: !t 0810912023 Ii I I

¶50

! { sTATE oA
q
Ii tta :f I ? 0tetl $8
!' {-)
ORDE i:
n
CRLRcI No.913 of 2012 -.:*r;---
.l
!
I
i
iI
I ,t'
-!I I1'r .:;,1
DISMISSING TH EICRL.RC
t t
I
I
III
I
I
I
I
i
2,<br>I;
i
t

Manthri Lingam v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manthri Lingam v. the State of A.P. Rep., 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

Banoth Bhadru Naik Vs Dr.Budha Prakash Jyothi

P.Prabhaker Rao, Medak Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

A.Chandrasekhar , Shekar, Ramnagar, Hyderabad Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Hyd and Anr.

B.Srinivasulu, Mahaboobnagar and 2 Otrs., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Shaik Adil Pasha Vs Seema Anjum Divorcee and Another

Doggela Sambaiah, Warangal District Vs the State of a.P., Rep.by Pp., High Court of a.P., Hyderabad