Partly allowed

Rathod Lalu Singh , Lalu v. the State of a.P., Throug the Sho., P.S.

Telangana HC17 Oct 2024CRLRC/1616/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court rejected arguments to quash a conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings but reduced the imprisonment term to the period already served and imposed a fine due to significant delay and mental distress.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed; appeal and revision otherwise dismissed.

Rathod Lalu Singh , Lalu Vs the State of a.P… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

OTE: The Accused was dkected {o be released on^{bail by the} order^{of the Hrgh Court} dated 02-08-2O13 in Cdp.RCMP No.2481 o12013ⁱⁿ Crl.RCNo.1616 of²⁰¹³

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF T€LANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OFOCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINALREVISION CASE t{O: 1616 OF 2013

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of the^CrPC against the^judgement dated 0148-2013 in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2013 on the^file of the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad^prefered against the^judgment dated 04-0'1-2013 in CC No.258 of 20@ on the fie of the Court of the Judicial^First Class Magistrate,Boath.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Rathod Lalu Singh @ Lalu ,S/O. Peeraji, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Jeep Driver,R/o. Bikku Thanda Village,lnderveli Mandal,AdilabadDistrict.

¶10

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACC US ED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of AP through the Station House Officer, Police Station Neredigonda, Adilabad District rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP,^Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAI NANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. G.Surender Reddy

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. E.Ganesh, AssistantPublic Prosecutor

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶19

CRIMINAL REVTSION^{CASE No.1616 OF 2013}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Revision^{Case is hled seeking to set aside the} judgment dated 01.O8.2O13 in Criminal^{AppealNo'6 of 20 13} passed by the learned I Additional^{Sessions Judge, Adilabad} (for short, "rhe appellate^{Court")confirming the judgmentdated} 04.O1.20 13 in^{C.C.No.25B of 2009 passedby the learned Judicial} Magistrate of^{First Class,Boath (for short, "the trial Court")'}

¶22

Hearcl Mr. S. Surender^{Reddy, learned counselfor the} petitioner and Mr. E. Ganesh,^{learned AssistantPublic} Prosecutor appearing^{forre spondent-State}

¶23

The briel-f'arcts of the^{case are that on 15.O5.2009at 10:00} a.m. u,hile ttre^cleceersed /^{Rathod Gama Bai was standingin front} of their hotLse, the^{petitioner/ accusedwho is the driver of the} Jeep bearing No,AP^{25 U 157 1, reversedhis Jeep at highspeedin} a rash ar-rci negligent^{manner and hit the victim, due to u'hich,} the victim [el] on the^{ground, received fatal injuries and died} .rnhile shiftir-rg to hospiturl. Therefore, the de.facto complainant lodged zr report^{belore thePolice. Upon completiono[}

¶24

¶25

investigation, charge sheet^{was taid against the accused for the} offence punishable under Section^{3O4-A of I.P.C-}

¶26

The case was taken on fitre by^{the trialCourt vide} C.C.No.258 of 2OO9 against^{the petiti'oner/ accusedfor the offence} punishable under Section 3O4-A of^{I.P.C. The trial Courtvide} judgment dated O4.01.2OI3 in C.C.No.258 of 2OO9,^{found the} petitioner/ accused guilty of the^{offence punishable underSection} 304-,4 of I.P.C. ald convicted^{and sentencedhim to suffer simple} imprisonment for a^{period of one year. Aggrieved by the same, the} petitioner preferred an APPeal.

¶27

Ttre appellate Court, vide^{impugnedjudgment, dismissed} thc appeal, conhrming^{the judgmentpassedby the trial Court'} Assailrng the same, the^{petitioner preferred the presentRcvision'}

¶28

6, Lcarned counsel for the^{petitionersubmitted that earlierto} the accident the deceased^{GamaBai sustainedlractureinjuries} due to buffaloes fighting and^{she died due to the said injuries and} not duc to the injuries sustained in^{the accident. He further} subrnitted that PWl, PW2 and PWIO^{are children ofthc} deceasecl, u,ho are not ocular^{witnessesto the allegcd incident.} PW3, PW4 and PW8,^who are^said to be^{ocuiar witncss, did not} support the case of the^{prosecution. He further submittcd that}

¶29

'I I iIl; rl ii I

¶30

PW5 and PW6 are inquest witnesses, pW7 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, pW10 is the Head Constable,^pW I I is the Motor Vehicle Inspector and PW12 is the Investigating Officer, who are interested witnesses to the case of the prosecurion and that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He stated that the prosecution failed to prove the rashness and negligence on ttre part of the petitioner and seeks to allow this Revision.

¶31

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, rightly passed their respective judgments and interlerence of this Court is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision.

¶32

On behall of tl-re prosecul ion, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 12 and rn:rrkecl E.xs.Pl to p12. On behalf of the defence, none were examincd and no document u,as marked. Upon careful consideration of the merterial ervailable on record, the trial Court observed that the acciclcnt had resulted in the death of one Rathod Gama Bai. PWt hacl u.itnessed the incident and identilied a--n the driver. In the cross examination ol pW1, no material facts were elicited to disprove the lzrct of accident. The fact that while

I i i I I I I! i I I II !

¶37

reversing the Jeep the accused dashed the deceased, as a result of which she sustained injuries and strccumbed while shifting to the Hospital for better treatment is corroborated with the evidence of PW2, who is the ocular witness to th€ case of the prosecution. As per the evidence of PWl1, the occurrence of the accident was not due to mechanical defects. The version of PWI corroborated with the evidence of PWs.7, 9 atd 12. Therefore, the trial Court observed that the accused was driving the crime vehicle at the relevant time and caused the accident, resulting in the death o[ the one Rathod Gama Bai. Hence, found the accused guilt-v of the offence punishable under Section 3O4-A of I.P.C. and rendered the judgment dated 04.O1.2013 in C.C.No.258 of 20O9.

¶38

The appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the evidence available on record also concluded that the petitioner/ driver of the crimc .-leep, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and became responsible for the accident, which resulted in the death ol the deceascd. Therefore, the appellate Court held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the petitioner for thc offencc under Section 304-A of LP.C. beyond reasonable doubt and rendcred the impugned judgment.

¶39

4 I I

¶40

This Court on O2.O8.2O13^{suspended the sentence of} imprisonment imposed against the^{petitionerand orderedto} enlarge him on bail on the same^{terms and conditions on which} he was enlarged on bail by the Court^{below during trial.}

¶41

In the present case on hand, the trial^{Court as well as} appellate Court concurrently held that the^{petitioner was guilty} of the offence under Section^{304-4ol I.P.C., which finding,in my} considered view, does not call lor interference,^{in exercise of} revisional^jurisdiction under Section^{397 Cr.P.C. Hence, I find no} reason to interfere with the^u'ell considered^{judgmentspassedby} both the Courts.

¶42

Having regard to the sr-rbmissions^{made by both the learned} counsel and upon consiclerrng the fact that the^petitioner underwent mental agonl b-v roaming around the trial Court^as well as the appellate Court aud its^{eleven long yearshave elapsed} from the date of filing ol ttris^{Revision,this Court deemsit} appropriate to reduce the sentence^{imposedagainst the petitioner} to the period of imprisonmen t^{alread,r'undergone by him. The} petitioner is directed to depcrsr t an amount of^{Rs. I} ,OO,O0O/(Rupees one lakh only) as fine. to the credit of C.C.No.258 of 20O9 on the file of the learrred^{Jurdicial Magistrateof First Class,}

¶43

¶44

Boath, within a period o[ three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month

¶45

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

¶46

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if my, shall stand

¶47

closed.

¶48

/,TRUE COPY//

¶49

SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD E UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

I Additional^{Sessions Judge, Adilabad}

¶52

The Judicial^{Magistrate of First Class, BoathAdilabad District}

¶53

The Station^{HouseOfficer,NeredigondaPolice Station} 'Adilabad^District

¶54

The Superintendent,^{District Jail,Adilabad}

¶55

Two CcS^{to Publrc Prosecutor ,High Court for the State of Telangana'at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶56

One CC to^{SRI G.surender ReddyAdvocate IOPUCI}

¶57

Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:17.10.2024

1i\tl ST4 r
(oe.
q (:_
o()
2 3 IUB 2U5
\ 1-
'i..,1.,l
\ -. ,./
. ,l ^..- '.:./
-,, ",.'- ://
-'+,-a- -.-. '- ; j

¶62

ORDER

¶63

CRLRC.No.1616 of 2013

¶64

Dismissing the Criminal Revision Case

¶65

^(e<br>qt) t4-,.
\'

Rathod Lalu Singh , Lalu v. the State of a.P., Throug the Sho., P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathod Lalu Singh , Lalu v. the State of a.P., Throug the Sho., P.S.

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

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs State of a.P., and Another

M/S. Hdfc., Bank Ltd., Vs State of a.P., and Another

Regunta Bheem Rao, Adilabad., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Thati Anup Kumar Vs Smt. Akshitha Annanm

Nomula Srinivas Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

The State of Ap., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Vs Shaik Abdul Rashool and Another