Partly allowed

P.Mahender v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Mar 2024CRLRC/1560/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court confirmed the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder arising from a fatal traffic accident. The Court reduced the sentence from three months to one month and dismissed the revision, recommending the petitioner's release on bail pending the remaining sentence. The judgment also addressed set-off for time spent in remand.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed, sentence reduced to one month's simple imprisonment from three months; remand period set-off.

P.Mahender Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL sllP: The Petitioner/Accused^{was directedto be releasedon bail by the order} of the High Court dated. 29.07.2013^{in Crl.RC. No. 2409 of 2013 in Crl'R'C No'} 1560 of 2013.

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE^{TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEE.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASE NO:1560 OF 2013}

¶7

criminal Revision case^{undersection397 & 40'1 of cr.P.C.aggrievedby the} Judgment daled 25-07-2013^{in GRL.ANo. 496 of 2012 on the file of the court of} the Hon'ble t/etropolitan^{SessionsJudge,Hyderabadpreferred against the} Judgment dated 04-04-2012in cc^{No. 891 of 2008 on the file of the Hon'ble for} the ill Addl. Chief Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.Mahender, S/o P.Lakshminarayana'^{R:/o H.No.5-78, BehindToddy Shop'} Narsapur' Medak District' ...pETrroNER/AppELLANT/A..usED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh,^{Represented by its Public Prosecutor,High} Court of Andhra Pradesh,^{Hyderabad. Through the S.H'O', S'R Nagar P'S',} HYderabad'

¶12

...RESP.NDENTS

¶13

l.A. NO: 2 OF 20'13 CR LRCMP.^{NO:2409 0F 2013)}

¶14

Petition under Section^{151 cPC praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High courtmay be pleased to} suspend the sentence of^{the court below i.e., the impugnedjudgment} -of^the learned lll Addl. chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in c.c.No.891of 2008,} dated 04.04.2012 which^{was confirmedand modifiedby the Hon'ble Metropolitan} Sessions Judge,^{Hyderabad in crl.A.No.496of 2012, dated 25.07.2013and} release tne pJtitionerlaccused^{on bail on the same terms and conditionsof the} Lower Court in the interest^{of justice.}

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner^{:SRl. SOMAVENKATESWARLU} Counsel for the Respondent:^{SRI KHAJA VIZAFATH ALI}

¶16

(ASST .PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG))

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASENo.156O OF 2013}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The present Criminal^{Revision Case is hled aggrieved by} the^judgment dated^{25.07.2013 passed in CriminalAppeal} No.496 of 2OI2 on the^{file of the learnedMetropolitan} Sessions Judge,^{Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court")} in confirming the^{judgmentdated 04.O4.2O12 in C'C'No'891} of 2008 on the file^{of III AdditionalChief Metropolitan} Magistrate, Hyderabad^{(for short, "the trial Court")'}

¶22

Heard the learned counsel^{for the petitioner and the} learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutorappearing lor} respondent-State and^{perused the record.}

¶23

The brief facts^{of the case are that on 11'O9'2OO7,at} about 08. 15 hours,^{whendeceased uiz., Smt' Suvarnawas} proceeding on her moped^{bearingNo.AP-28-AB-3582 from} her residence to the work^{place, on the way, when she was} passing by ESI cross roads,^{SR Nagar,the accused drove the} water tanker bearing^{No.AP-O9-J-O642in arash and}

¶24

¶25

negligent manner at high speed and dashed her moped from behind, due to which, she fell down on the road, sustained bleeding injuries and became unconscious. Immediately, she was shifted to NIMS hospital, Panjagutta and while undergoing treatment, she was succumbed to injuries on 23.O9.2OO7, due to complications of fracture of pelvis. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3O4-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.").

¶26

On behalf of the prosecution, the tria,l Court examined PWs. 1 to 8 and marked Exs.Pl to P4.

¶27

After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court vide judgment cited supra, found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 304-,{ of I.P.C. Petitioner/accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 3O4-A of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.25O/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment lor one month.

¶28

lr !i ! I l

¶29

-l

¶30

Aggrieved^{by the judgment dated O4'O4'2O12' the} petitioner/appellant^{preferredCriminal Appeal No'496 of} 2Ol2 before the^{appellate Court'The learnedappellate} Court after^{examiningthematerial facts and upon} considering^{the trial Court jud'gmentin C'C'No'S91 of 2008} has dismissed^{the criminal appeal and the sentence of} simple imprisonment^{for a period of six months imposedby} the trial Court^{is modified to simple imprisonmentfor a} period of three^{months and fine amount of Rs'25O/-is} -enhanced^{to fine of Rs.5,00o l.ar]ld' in default of payment of} fine, the accused^{shall undergo simple imprisonmentfor a} period of three months.^{Challengingthe same' the present} revision is filed.

¶31

Learned counsel^{for the petitionercontended that the} trial Court^{as well as the appellateCourt failed to appreciate} the evidence^{available on record in properperspective and} passed their respective^{judgments' Therefore'he seeksto} set aside the^{imPugnedjudgment'}

¶32

Learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor opposed the same} and contended^{that both the Courts, upon appreciating the}

¶33

¶34

oral arrd documentary evidence available on record in right perspective, passed their respective judgmerrts and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

¶35

There is concurrent finding of both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court with regard to the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the revlsl0n petitioner/accused did not place anything before this Court, which would discredit the evidence on record. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2OO7., almost seventeen years have been lapsed and during this period, the revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, which was reduced to three months by the appellate Court, to one month.

:----_--,

The Criminal^{Revision Case is dismissed, confirming} the conviction^{imposed by the trial Court, which was} modified by^{the appellate Court' However,the sentence} imposed by the^{trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment} for a period^{of six monthsfor the offence punishable undef} Section304-AoflPC,whichwasfurtherreducedtothree months by the appetlate^{Court, is reduced to one month'} The remand^{period already undergone by the accused,if} any, shall be set-off^{against the terms of the sentence} imposed to him^{under Section428(ll of Cr'P'C'}

¶40

Pending miscellaneous^{applications,if any, sha1lstand}

¶41

closed.

¶42

Sd/. M. RAMANA^KRISHNA ,/ DEPUTY^REGISTRAR ,/

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

The^{lll Addl. Chief Metropolitantt/l?git:li!?^lvderabad'} . Z. tne^{fUetropolitanSessionsJudge'HyderaDao} -. 3. The Station^{House Offi;;;,S-.R N;garPolice.Station,Hyderabad'} 4. one cc^{to SRI sorrln vtrrrr<nTES"WARLU' Advocate[oPUC]} Ctutt for^{the State of Telanganaat} 5. Two^{CCto the puOrlc p'ole"Jtoiff} 'gtt HYderabad [OUTI

¶48

Two^{CD CoPies'}

AR/ sh

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010312024

.a i- "
.J^..<br>,,,,,'\ \
((
!.' '-i
li.) v
I, J ?7 illI 2Ul 7it
\1., :- il
a (: \ * .i''
-7
-::---:.-'

¶54

ORDER

¶55

CRLRC.No.1560 of 2013

¶56

THE CRL.R.C. IS DISMISSED

¶57

.oP(4
q
tr{.

P.Mahender v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mahender v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

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.Malla Reddy Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., Hyd. and Anr.

M.S.Malik and 3 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Jangam Yellavva , Lachavva and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P.

Erukulla Uma Shankar, Warangal Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

Kodidela Venkanna, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

B.H.Kutumba Rao, R.R.Dt., Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., and Anr.