Allowed

M.Hanumanth Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Nov 2024CRLRC/1207/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the revision regarding a conviction under Section 304-A IPC for causing death by negligence. While endorsing the trial court's findings, the Court set aside the six-month sentence after 14 years of pendency to meet the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of six months imprisonment imposed by the appellate court is set aside and the criminal revision case is allowed.

M.Hanumanth Reddy Vs the State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

: I ;

¶2

Bail Slip:- The Petitioner and accused^{was directedto be released on bail by} Court Order of the High Court dated.11.06.20t4,^{in CRLRC.MP.No.1900} of 2014 in CRLRC.No.1207 of^2074.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT^HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1207 OF 2014

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397^{& 401 of Cr.P.C.,the Judgment} passed in Crl.A.No.653 of 2O12,on the file of the Court of ll^Additional Nletropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad,dt.09.06.2014 in^{confirmingthe} Judgment made in C.C.No.514 ol 2011, on the^{file of the Xlll Spectallvlagistrate} at Hyderabad dt.29.06.2012.

¶9

Between

¶10

M.HANUI/ANTH REDDY, S/o. M. Ram Reddy, Occ:^{RTC Bus Driver,} Contonment Depot R/o. Flat No.301, Padmalaya^{Residency, SantoshNagar,} Hyderabad

¶11

...pETraoNER/AppELLANT/AccusED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep., by^{Public Prosecutor,High Courtat} HYderabad

¶14

...RESP.NDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG)

¶17

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1207 of 2O14

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This crinrinal revision case is filed assailing the judgrnent clated 09.06.2074 passed ll1 Cr1.A.No.653 of 2012 on the file of the II Aclditional '{ctropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyclerabad, wherein, the learncd Distrir:t Jucige confirmecl thc conviction and modifiecl the sentence from one vear imprisonment to six months imprisonment, datcd 29.06.20 l2 passed in C.C.No.514 of 2017 on the file of the XIII Special Magistrate at I Iyclerabad, whe reiry the accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 304-4 of Indian Penal Cocle ancl sentenced to unclerp;o simple imprisonment for a period of one rnonth ancl to pay a finc of Rs.500/-. In dcfault of payment of iine he shall underso simple imprisonment for a period of one month

¶21

'I'he parties shall be hereinafter referred to as described in the Masistrate's Court

¶22

¶23

¶24

The brief facts of the^{prosecutionin nutshellare that on} 31.01.2011 at about^{07.15 AM, whiie the deceased Venkateshwho is} aged about 80 years^{old, physically handicappedwaspassing} towards railway station^{side by crawling,thc accused drove the RIC} bus bearing NO.AP^{28 Z 5017 in a rash and ncgligent manner and} dashed him as a^{result, the deceasedvenkatesh rcceived grievous} injuries and succumbed^{to injuries at 8.00 AM while undergoing} treatment.

¶25

The daughter of^{the deceasedlodged a complaintbeforethe} station House officer,^{Kachiguda Policestation and a case in crime} No.28 of 2011 under^{Section 304-4 of Indian I'enal Code has been} registcred against the^{accused.The Investigatingofficer after} completion of entire^{investigationfiled charge sheet againstthe} accused stating^{that the accuseddrove the said RTCbus in a rash and} negligent manner and caused^{severegrievous injuries to the} deceased, as a result^{tl-re deceasedsuccumbed to thc injuries'}

¶26

The learned IV^{Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,} Hyderabad has taken^{cognizanceof the offence uuder section 304-4.}

¶27

¶28

of h'rdian Penal Code against the accused and registered the case as C.C.No.559 of 2011. Thereafter, the case has been Lransferred from IV Additional Cl-riei Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to XIII Special Magistrate Court,, I{,cler-abad. Thereafter copics of documents have been furnished to the accused. The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.I,.C, wherein, the accused deniecl the substance of the accusation

¶29

During the course of trial, prosecution exarnined pws.1 to 7 and got markcci ]lxs.P1 to P9. No oral and documentary cvidence adduced by the accusecl. After closure of the prosecution case, the accuscd was cxaminecl under Section 313 of Cr.p.C, wherein, the accused clenieri incriminating material against hirn

¶30

The learneci XIII Spccial Magistrate, Hyderabad after hearing both sicles fou.c-l tl're accused guilty for the offence under section 304A of Indian Irer-ral Coc{e and convicted hirn and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 304-4 of Indian Penal Code

-::

and in clefault of^{payment offine he shall undergosimple} imprisotrment^{for a period of one month}

¶36

Aggrieved thereby, the^{accusedpreferred Crl'A'Nop'653of} 2012 against the^{conviction and sentencepassed in C.C.No.54 of 2017} d,ated. 29.06.2012 on^{the file of the learnedXIII SpecialMagistrate'} I{yclerabad,^{whereby, the learned District Magistrate dismissed the} said appeal confirming^{the findings of the trial court in C.C.No.514} of 2011 passed by^{the learnedXIII SpecialMagistrate, Ilyderabacl'} howevet', the period of^{sentence is modificd from one 1'ear} imprisonment to^{six months,but imprisonmentmaintaining the fine} amount of Rs.500/-.

¶37

g.TlrisCourtconsideredthesubmissionsofbotlrsiclesand perused the^record.

¶38

l.earnecl^{counsel for the petitioner/accusedcontent-led that the} judgments of both^{the courtsbeloware contrary to law, weight of} evidence and^{probabilities of the case and the said judgmentsare not} sustainable in^{the eye of Iaw. Learned counselfurther contcndedthat} the courts telo-^{Iiilea to appreciate the evidence of prosccution} '

¶39

' j .:,.15i:i:* *t"-7

¶40

¶41

witnesses. Though therc are scveral cliscrepancies and olTllssl0ns ln thc er.iclcnce of the prose.cution witnesses, both the Courts errolleouslv came to conclusion that accused was founcl guilty Hence, prays to alior,r, the criminal revision case.

¶42

Per contra, lea,red Adclitionar public prosecutor woulcl submit that the concurrent fi.clings of the courts belorv are based on merit much less lcgall,v admissible material and that the appcllate Court after re-appreciating e^tirc rnaterial available on recorcl, rightly appreciated tirc reaso,ing of the Court below a,d that there are no justifiable gro*nds to interfere with the finding recorded by the lear.ed appellatc Court. Hencc seeks to dismiss thc present revision case.

¶43

This Court having considcrecl the rival submissions of both sides and orr pcrusal of the entire record, is of the view that both the courts below l-rave appreciateci tl-re entire evidence available on record in right perspcctive ancl havc come to just conclusion that the accused has cornmittec-l the offe.ce punishabre under seclion 304-4

of Indian Penal Code

I I IIi

This Court after^{careful considerationof the entire record}

¶50

available, is not^{inciined to interferewith the orders passed by the} learned II Additional^{Metropolitan Sessions} Judge,^{Hyderabadir.r} Crl.A.No.653 of 2072^{dated 09.06.2014 as the said} iudgment^{has been} passed by appreciating^{the evidenceof record in proper perspective} manner.

¶51

1,4. It is pertincnt to^{mentionhere that in the presentcasethe} offence took place^{on 31.0L.2011.The accused has been facing the} criminal proccedings^{since 14 years.During the pendency of the} criminal proceedings the^{accused mighthave undergonemental} pressurc. Moreover,^{the accusecl is working as driver in APSRI'C} Deport.

¶52

on perusal of^{record it is evidentthat the learned XIII Special} Magistrate, Flyderabad^{while passing the judgment on 29'06'2012} observecl that the accused^{is a poor man and has two kids and the} entire family clependents^{on his income and he is the onlysource of} income to^{lookafter his family. 'fhe learned Magistrate took a lenient}

I I t I a I l

view in imposing punishment and fine and also granted relief under Section 428 ol Cr.Ir.C.

¶57

'16. Learnecl II Aclditional Mctropolitan Sessions Judge, I{yderabad in his judgment passed in Crl.A.No.653 of 2072 dated 09.06.2014, observed that the sentence of imprisonment is modified from one year to six months consiclering thc circumstallces as narrated by the learned XIII Special Magistrate, IJyderabarcl

¶58

"17. Iaking into cor-rsideratior-r the facts anc-l circumstances of the case and the submission made by the lcarned counscl for the accused as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the respondent-State to meet the ends of justice as per the observations o[ the learned trial ancl appetlate Court, as the accused has been roaming arourrd the courts since the date of incident i.e., 31.07.2017 ancl in view of the lcniencv tarken by the learnecl appellate Court, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of six months imprisonment imposed b), th. learnecl II Additional Metropolitan Sessions |udge, Hy.derabad, is set aside ald the criminal revision case is consequently allowed

¶59

¶60

.. I.' '.. l':.

¶61

Accordingly, this criminal revision case is allowed

¶62

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in all these criminal

¶63

revision cases shall stancl closed.

¶64

SD/- V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

secs)'r8irrcen

To,

t. The Court^{of the ll AdditionaltVletropolitanSessions Judge' at} Hyderabad

¶69

z. The Court^{of the Xlll Special Magistrate at Hyderabad'}

¶70

Two ccs to^{the Public Prosecutor, High court for the stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad.

¶71

One CC to^{SRI SREEKANTH REDDY' AMBATI, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶72

Two CD^CoPies

Pcsd/PSL ,w

HIGH COURT

DATED:2811112024

;\ :=-------_r--l;rc .5 f,i;-\
'i.' )i .
:"<br>r-)
2 3 AIJS 20S ll
.:.* .- t/
'i. '

¶78

ORDER

¶79

CRLRC.No.1207 of 2014

¶80

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶81

gcrRqd
Y.%'"

M.Hanumanth Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Hanumanth Reddy v. the State of Telangana

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

K. Anish Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and another

Shaik Hidayath Vs The State of Telangana

Bujala Sreenivas Reddy Vs Smt. Pavani alias Rajitha

Gollena Rajaiah Vs the State of Ap.

Kunaparaju Seetha Rama Raju Vs Indukuri Subba Raju

Vadla Venkataiah, Vs T.Pandu Ranga Reddy