Dismissed

Chennaram Niranjan Reddy , Raghavender Reddy v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024CRLRC/1524/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against conviction under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC for a fatal road accident involving a rashly driven lorry. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent convictions but reduced the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone, directing compensation deposits to the deceased's legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to imprisonment already undergone; petitioner directed to pay Rs.45,000 to the trial Court's C.C.No.217/2007 account for the deceased's heirs and Rs.5,000 to the State within three mo

Chennaram Niranjan Reddy , Raghavender Reddy Vs the… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

Bail slio: The Accused was directed^{to be released on bail by orderof High court} iata)a.ot.zol3. in crl.Rc.^{MP.No. 2366 of 20.13in crl.Rc.No.1524ot 2013.}

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMIN AL REVISION^{CASE NO: 1524OF 2013}

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed^{under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, against the} order d|.24.O7.2013,^{passedin crl.A.No.1 ot2011, by the Additional District and} Sessions Judge, Vikarabad,^{RangaReddy District in C.C.No.217 of 2007on the} file of the Judicial First Class^{Magistrate Pargi, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

CHENNARAM NIRANJAN^REDDY @ RAGHAVENDER^REDDY, S/o-Ram Reddy, Occ:Lorry^Driver, R/o Gadisingapur Village^{Pargilvlandal,} Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A.P., Rep., by^{its Public Prosecutor, High Cou(of Andhra} Pradesh at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. M ACHUTA^REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG)

¶15

The court made the following : ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE. V. VENUGOPAL} CRIM INAL^{REVISIONCASENo.L524 oF213}

¶17

OR D R:

¶18

The Criminal^{Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment} dated24.07.2013^{passedin Crl.A.No.1 of 2011 on the file of learned} Additional District^{and SessionsJudge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy} District(forshort,..appellateCourt,,)inconfirmingtheconviction and sentence^{passed in judgment dated 23'10'2010in C'C'No'217} of2ooTonthefileofthelearnedJudicialMagistrateoftheFirst Class, Pargi,^{Ranga Reddy District (for short,"trial Court")'}

¶19

Heard the^{learned counsel for the petitionerarrd Mr' Vizarath} Ali, learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutorappearing for respondent-} State and Perused^{the record.}

¶20

The brief facts of^{the caseare that on 27'Q7'2007,when PW} Nos.3, 4 and 5^{and one RajeshwarReddywere going from Pargito} Gadisingapur^{Village,in a lorry bearingNo'AP22T8595, the accused} drove the said^{lorry in a rash and negligent manner,and after} Rangampally^gate at^{a turningthe said lorry turned turtle, due to} which one of^{the inmatesof lorry,Pargi Rajeshwarleddysustained} head injuries and^{died on the spot. PW.4 sustainedsimple injuries'} On the basis of^{the complaint lodqed by the defacto (:omplainant' the}

¶21

¶22

Police have registered a case in Cr.No.113 of 2OO7 under Section 304-4 and 337 of IpC. After completion of th e investigation of the case, the Sub_Inspector of police, pargi police Station has filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offen ces punishable under Sections 304_4 and 337 of IpC and Section 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶23

After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court vide judgment dated 23.10.2010 in c'c'No'217 of 2oo7 fou* the petitioner guirty For the offence punishable under Sections 304_4 and 337 of I.p.C, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of fuo (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs'1'5oo/- for the offence punishable under section 337 0f IPC for a period oF three (3) months, in default of payment of fine. The accused sha, arso undergo for simple imprisonment for period of one ( 1) month for the offence punishable under Section 3O4_A, in default of payment of fine of Rs.500/_.

¶24

Aggrieved by the judgment datecr 23.10.2010, the petitioner/appe'ant preferred criminal Appeal No.1 0f 2011 before the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court after examining the material facts before it and upon considering the trial Court judgment in C.C.No.217 of 2007, dismissed the criminal appeal

¶25

¶26

confirming the conviction and sentence^{of imprisonment recordedby} the trial Court. Challenging the same,^{the present revi:;ion is filed.}

¶27

Learned counsel for the^petitioner contended that the^trial Court as well as the appellate Court^{failed to appreciate the evidence} available on record in^{proper perspective and passed their respective} judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

¶28

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed lhe^sameand contended that both the Courts, upon appreciating^the oral^and documentary evidence available on record in right^perspective, passed their respective^judgments and the interferenc:e of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Re/ision.

¶29

On behalf of the^prosecution, the trial Court e):amined^PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. In defence,^{none ^/ere examined} and no document was marked. The trial Court observed^{that the} prosecution has estabtished its case that the accused drove the lorry bearing No.AP22T 8595 at about 6:30^pm in a rash and^negligent manner. After Rangampally^gate near a turning due to his rash and negligent driving the lorry turned turtle causing the death of Rajeshwar Reddy on the spot, due to the head injury, caused and simple injuries to^PW.4 attracting the ingredients under Sections

¶30

¶31

I , j t : : ii I ! I tI I I I I T I E E B II F t 5 i

¶32

¶33

304-A and 337 IPC. Hence, the prosecution has established its case against the accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellate Court observed that the prosecution not only established the involvement of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.AP22T 8595 but also the involvement of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle, and that he drove in the rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to PW.4. The appellate Court on careful scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses particularly eye witness i.e. PWs.4 and 5 and the evidence of Medical Officer i.e. PW.9 when read with the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 clearly establishes that the said accident in the caused the death of Rajeshwar Reddy apart from causing injuries to PW.4.

¶34

A perusal of the record shows that this Court vrde order dated 26.O-7.2013 suspended the sentence of imprisonment alone and enlarged the petitioner on bail on condition of his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisFaction oF the trial Court.

¶35

In the case on hand, both the Courts held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-4 and 337 of IPC and convicted of the same under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., which

¶36

¶37

finding, in my considered view, does^{not call for inte:rference in the} exercise of revisional^{jurisdictionunder Section 397 Cr.P.C.}

¶38

There are no^{groundsand muchless valid groundsto interfere} with the. well considered^judgments of^{both tfre Courts and} accordingly, this Revision^{is liable to be dismissed.}

¶39

Having regard to the submissions^{madeby brlth the learned} counsel and upon considering the^{fact that the petitioner suffered} I mental agony by roaming around trial^{Court as wr-'llas appellate(} Court, this Court is inclined to^{take a lenientview in so far as the} sentence imposed against the^{petitioner is concerned and reducethe} sentence imposed on him to the^{period of imprisonment already} undergone by him. Accordingly,^{CriminalRevisionCas;e is dismissed.}

¶40

However, the^{petitioner is furtherdirectedto pay an amountof} Rs.45,000/- to the credit of the C.C.No.2l7^{of 2007 beforethe trial} Court and Rs.5,000/- to the^{credit of the State wit.hin a periodof} three (3) months from the date oF^{receipt of a corry of the order.} Upon such deposit, the legal^heirs of^{the deceased are directed to} withdraw the same with immediate^effect.

¶41

¶42

L4. In default, the^judgment dated 24.07.2013 in Crl.A.No.l of 2011 on the file of learned Additional District aftd Sessions ludge, Vikarabad District stands good in all respects.

¶43

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

¶44

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

SD'. I.NAGA^LAKShII'/II -OTPUW REGISTRAR

/ITRUE COPY//

SECTTON^OFFICER

To,

l.TheCourtofAdditionalDistrictandSessionsJudge,Vikarabad, Ranga ReddY^District

¶50

The Court^{of the Judicial First ClassMagistrate, Pargi'} Ranga ReddY^District

¶51

Two CCs^{to the Public Prosecutor, High courtfor the state of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶52

One CC to SRl.^{M. ACHUTA REDDYAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶53

Two^{CD CoPtes}

HIGH COURT

EW,J

DATED:1810312024

ORDER

'-r !1E S f4 ;€
{
l Jj 0 4 J U L C)
tP

¶59

CRLRC.No.1524 of 2013

¶60

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE WITH CERTAIN MODIFICATTONS

Chennaram Niranjan Reddy , Raghavender Reddy v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chennaram Niranjan Reddy , Raghavender Reddy v. the State of A.P.

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

Mohammad Sulthana Begum Vs Guguloth Sakunthala

Smt K.Kavitha, Secunderabad and Anr., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

G.Krishnamurthy, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Dubbaka Venkataiah Vs the State of A.P.

Smt P.Swarna Latha Vs Smt Chandrakala and Another

Nandulal Kori Vs Nanda Kishore Ladda and Anr.