Partly allowed

Munigala Bhaskar, Warangal District v. State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024CRLRC/1614/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC for causing death in an auto accident. With no representation for the petitioner, the court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings on identity and rash driving, confirmed the conviction, reduced the sentence to three months, and partly allowed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence under Section 304-A IPC reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment; fine under both counts unchanged.

Munigala Bhaskar, Warangal District Vs State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

\ IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

MONDAY,^{THE NINTH DAYOF SEPTETVBER} .' -TWO TNOUSRNO AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶5

CRIMIN^{AL REVISI ON CASE NO:1614oF 2010}

¶6

Criminal^{Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr'P C aggrieved by the Order} dated 01-07-2010^{madein Crl Crl A No S of 2009 on the file of the Courtof the} Special Sessions^{Judge,for SC/ST Cases-cum-Vll Additional Sessions Judge'at} Warangal,^{Preferred against the Order passed in C C No 517 of 2OO4 dated 12-09-} 200sonthefileoftheCourtofthelVAdditiona|JudicialFirstClassMagistrate' Warangal

¶7

Between:

¶8

H.No. 1-124,^{ChilPur Village,} Iv'luniqala^{Bhaskar, S/o' Komuraiah'33 YearsR/o} Cflan"pw^{ltlandal Warangal District'}

¶9

...Petitioner/AppellanUAccused

¶10

AND

¶11

State of^{A.P., Rep , by Public Prosecutor'HighCourt' Hyderabad}

¶12

...ResPondent.

¶13

Counsel^{for the Petitioner(s):SRI' M R NEELA KANTAM} Counsel for^{the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶14

The Gourt^{made the following: ORDER}

¶15

¶16

,i'

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1614 oF 2010

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/ accu sed aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.07.2010 in Crl.A.No.8 of 2009, on the fiie of Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases_cum_Vll Additional Sessions Judge, at ,Varangal, confirming the judgment dated 12.09.2008 passed by the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate.

¶20

The revisi,cn petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 255 (2) of Cr.p.C. for the offences under Sections 304-4 eLnd 337 ofIpC and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,OO0/_ and Rs. 5OO/ -re s pectively.

¶21

3 ' continuouslv, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even, today, there is no representation for the petitioner, though the matter is posted under the caption for dismissal'. I have gone through the record with the assistance of learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent-State

¶22

¶23

Briefly,^{the case of the prosecutionis that revlslon} petitioner^{was driving an Auto in which the deceased and two} others^{who are P'Ws'2and 3 were travelling' The Auto was} driven in^{a rash and negligent manner resulting in the} petitioner^{losing control over the vehicleand Auto turned} turtle.^{Deceased fell on the road and the Auto fell on him} resulting^{in his instantaneous death'}

¶24

The complaint^{was hied by P'W'l and on the basis of} the said'^{complaint,Police investigated the case and filed} charge^{sheet for the offences under Sections304-A and337} of IPC,^{for causingdeath of one Suresh and injuring P'Ws'2} and 3.^{Learnedtrial Judge found that the evidence of P'Ws'2} and 3^{who were sitting in the Auto is believable'Theyhave} specifically^{identified the Driver of the Auto in the Court'} Mainly^{two groundswereraised in the Court below' Firstly'} identity^{of theaccused was doubtful and secondly'} prosecution^{failed to prove that the Auto was driven in a rash} and^{negiigentmanner'}

¶25

Both^{the Courts below held that both P'Ws'2 and 3 who} were injured^{have specifically identified the accused as Driver} of the^{Auto and secondly'the manner in which the accident}

¶26

¶27

had taken pla ce in itself would show that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The Auto was driven in uncontrollatrle speed resulting in the Auto turning turtle.

¶28

7 It is not the case that there was any obstruction on the road or anything that happened for losing control of the vehicle. In the absence of any such explanation, there are no grounds to interfere with the hndings of the Court below.

¶29

Accordingly, the conviction is confirmed. However, the sentence of in:.prisonment under Section 304-4 of IpC IS reduced to thrr:e months and the conviction under Section 337 of IPC rema,ins unaltered.

¶30

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. The trial Court shall cause appearance of the petitloner and sc-ud him to prison to serve out remaining part of the sentence imposed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISJRAR /,TRUE COPY//

¶32

b SECTION OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

The Special Sess,ions Judge, for SC/ST^{Cases-cum-Vll AdditionalSessions} Judge, at Warangal.

¶35

The lV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal

¶36

3 One CC to Sri lt/l R Neela Kantam Advocate IOPUC]

¶37

Two CCs to Publi,: Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT].

¶38

Two CD Copies

YIR/ghw

HIGH GOURT

DATED:0910912024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1614 of 2010

¶44

p.IE OF
I'
.d o
( ls)
$\ !2.
I
$
#
I LIE ,iP

¶45

CRL.RC IS PARTLY ALLOWED.

¶46

\9 I,)*''
\ry

Munigala Bhaskar, Warangal District v. State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munigala Bhaskar, Warangal District v. State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad

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

Uddagiri Venkaiah, Nalgonda District Vs State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad

Regulla Bhumanna Vs Mohd Ayub Khan

P. Janardhan, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its P Hyd., and Another

M.Sagar Reddy, Vs Nyayapathi Vani

Habeeb Mohsin Vs Mohd.Muzafaruddin Mohmood Khan

T.Harikrishna, Hyd., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.