Partly allowed

Polepally Pentaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Aug 2024CRLRC/1619/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court examined whether evidence supported charges of rash and negligent driving in a fatal road accident. Upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence from one year to three months due to the absence of other similar offenses, directing immediate imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to three months; accused remanded to prison to serve remaining period.

Polepally Pentaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

Bail Slip: The accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of High Court dated 05.08.2013 in Crl.R.C.M.P.2484 ot 2013 in Crl.R.C.1619 ol 2013.

¶2

[325r ]

¶3

IN THE T{IGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE NO: 1619^{OF 2013}

¶8

Criminal Revision filed under Sections^{397 & 401 of CrPC againstthe order} dated 30.07.2013 made in Crl.A.No.49 of^{2012onthe file of the court of the} Additional District and Sessions Judge,^{Vikarabad,R.R.Dist., Preferredagainst} the^judgment dated 03.12.2012^{passed in C.C.No.229of 2O1O on the file of the} court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,^{Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Polepally Pentaiah, S/o Chandraiah, Occ^{Driver, Ryo Aloor Village, ChevellaMandal,} R.R.Dist.

¶11

...PETITIONEFYAPPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented^{by its Public Prosecutor, HighCourt of} Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶14

.."RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. BAL^REDDY

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent: PUBLIc^PROSEcUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL R.EVISION CASE No.1619 of 2O13

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The revision petitioner was the driver of Tata Mobile Auto, while going along with deceased and others including P.Ws.2 and 3, the said vehicle hit a tree. According to the prosecution case, the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused.

¶22

On hearing the death of the deceased, P.W. 1, who is the father o[ deceased lodged complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, police filed charge sheet under Sections 3O4-A, 338 and 337 ol IPC

¶23

Learned Magistrate, having examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8 out of whom, P.Ws.2 and 3 were the eye witnesses and injured persor-rs, who were sitting in the Tata Mobile Auto, the oflending vehicle, convicted the accused and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304-A IPC and six months under Section 338 and one month for the offcnce under Section 337 IPC vide judgment in C.C.No.229 of 20 lO, dated

¶24

)

¶25

03.12.2012 passed by the Judicia-l^{Magistrate of First Class,} Chevella, R.R.District.

¶26

L,earned Additional District and^{SessionsJudge, Vikarabadin} Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2Ol2^{had confirmed the conviction vide} judgment dated 30.O7.2OL3.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing^{for the revisionpetitioner would} submit that none of the witnesses^{spokeaboutany kind of rash and} negligent driving by the revision^{petitioner.For the reasonof speed} driving, that in itself would^{not suffrce to regard rash and negligent} driving by the revision^{petitioner.He reliedon the judgment of the} Hon'ble High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh in the case o[ Paila Sanyasi} Rao v. State of A.P^(2023)(2) Andhra^{LD(Criminal) 39O)'}

¶28

The facts in ttre^{present case and the facts of the judgment} relied on by the learned counsel^{for the revision petitioner differ. In} the said^judgment cited, tJle^{deceased person was tryingto cross} the road and accident happened.^{The Court found that since} deceased had suddenly tried^{to cross the road, an offcnce under} Section 304-A IPC was^{not made out againstaccusedtherein'} However, in the present^{case, P.Ws.2, 3 and others '*'ere sitting in}

I I I i I i i i I

the auto, when the accident happened. The way in which accident took place, it can be safely inferred that the version of the witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3, who stated that auto was driven in a rash and 1n negligent manner 1S probable. The auto hit a tree resulting injuries and the fata-lity.

¶33

There are no grounds to interfere with the frnding recorded by the Courts below. However, keeping in view that there are no other offences of similar nature, which is not disputed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months.

¶34

Since the accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause appearance o[ the accused and send him to prison to serve out remaining period of sentence. The remand period if any shatl be given set olf under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶35

Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

¶36

SD/.M.RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶37

I //TRUE COPY//

¶38

t--t" sEcTto t{oF FICER

¶39

To,

¶40

The Additional District and Sessions^{Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga ReddyDistrict} 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class,^{Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶41

The Station House Officer, Chevella^{Police Station, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶42

¶43

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶44

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad[OUT]

¶45

One CC to Sri B. Bal Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI

¶46

Two CD Copies BR/plp

HIGH^COURT

DATED:06^t0812024

,/,
(,
tr ci
7 2 r[r 202{
\ /)/
;'4 fa:trl:i)

¶51

ORDER

¶52

CRLRC-No.1619^{of 2013}

¶53

PARTLY^{ALLOWING THE CRL'R'C'}

¶54

C $(-
6[1 vt

Polepally Pentaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polepally Pentaiah 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch.Ram Reddy, Nizamabad District Vs Mohd. Shabbir Ali, Nizamabad District and Another

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Doulath Bee and 4 Ors.

N.Eswar Rao, Vs Thatipamula Raju, and Another

Smt. Maimooda , Shaik Mahamooda, Mahabubnagar Dist. Vs P. Shabbir Hussain, Kurnool Dist., and 4 Ano.

Danam Sudhakar, Budwel, R.R.District Vs the State of a.P.,through SHO Rajendranagar P.S,R.R.Dt by Pp

Boini Ramulu Vs K. Narsimulu and Another