Partly allowed

Suram Jayaram, Nizamabad v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by Pp.,High Court of a.P.,Hyderabad

Telangana HC9 Aug 2024CRLRC/1649/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTC bus driver convicted under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC after his bus hit an oncoming lorry, killing its cleaner; conviction upheld in appeal. In revision, the High Court upheld the concurrent findings on identity of the driver but reduced imprisonment to three months.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from two years to three months rigorous imprisonment; accused to serve remaining part of sentence.

Suram Jayaram, Nizamabad Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

Bail Slip : The Petitioner/Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 17-09_2010 in Crl.M.P.No.2409/201 0 in Crt.R.C.No.1 649i201 0

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVI SION CASE NO: 1649 OF 2010

¶7

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.pC aggrieved by the Judgment and conviction passed by the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at [,4edak in Crt.A.No. 23 of 2O1O dated 15-09-20i0 preferred against the order passed in c.c.No. 719 of 2ool , dated 23-02-2010 by special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) at lVledak.

¶8

Between:

¶9

!yra1 ..layqrqn1,^{Nizamabad,S/o. Venkataiah, Aged 40 years, Occ:} RTC Bus Driver Rl/o. H.No. 3-4-3, Kotagalli, Nizamabad.

¶10

...PETtTtONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., through rep. by State Public^prosecutor, High Court of A,P. Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1 649 0F 20LO

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The revision petitioner/Accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 304-4 and 337 of the Indian penal Code by the trial Court and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 304-4 of IpC and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month for the olfence under Section 337 of IPC. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court.

¶21

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner who was the driver of the offending RTC bus while at Ramayampet, overtook another 1orry and hit the lorry head on. On account of the impact, the cleaner of the lorry namely Rajshekar sustained fracture injuries to his legs and also to his head. He died while undergoing treatment. PWs. 1 and 4 are the witnesses who identified the bus driver.

¶22

Both the Courts below found that since there was an accident ald the bus was at the scene for some time, the evidence of PWs. 1 ar.d 4 who have identified the accused, calnot be disbeiieved.

¶23

¶24

PW.S motor vehicle inspector who was also examined stated that there was no mechanical defect insofar as the crime vehicle is concerned.

¶25

On the basis of evidence adduced during trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused.

¶26

The learned Sessions Judge 1n appeal confirmed the conviction.

¶27

7 . l,earned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that since it was raining and eariy in the morning, the bus must have skid and caused the accident. In fact, the prosecution has not filed any log sheets to prove that there was a driver. Accordingly, the conviction of the Courts below has to be set aside.

¶28

It is not disputed that accused is the driver of the Corporation. He was identihed by PWs. I ald 4 that he was driving the vehicle. If at all he was not driving the vehicle it is for him to produce log sheets that he was not on duty on the said day. There are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the

¶29

Courts below.

¶30

3 g. However, keeping in^{r:iew that the accident is of the year} 2OO7 and, there^{are no other cases pending against him' this} Court deems^{itappropriate toreduce thesentence of} imprisonment^{to three months.}

¶31

Accordingly,^{CriminalRevision Case is partly allowed' The} Trial Court sha,ll^{cause appearanceof the accusedand sendhim} to prison to^{serveout the remainingpart of sentence'}

¶32

Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .fi/ION OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

'1. The lll Addl. District and Sessions Judge,^{(FTC), at Medak' (with records'} if any)

¶35

The Special^{Judicial Magistrateof FirstClass (Mobile) at Medak}

¶36

The Superintendent,^{District Prison, Medak Districtat Sangareddy}

¶37

One CC to^{Sri PalleSriharinath, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶38

5.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighcourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

¶39

Two CD CoPies

<br>

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910812024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1649 of 2010

¶46

ilF- S 141 (
,1,""
(
)o
21 Nlill ZIA
(
.|
o.
O 9.q. n 1+r€

¶47

Partly allowing the Criminal Revision Case

¶48

\1
V

Suram Jayaram, Nizamabad v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by Pp.,High Court of a.P.,Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suram Jayaram, Nizamabad v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by Pp.,High Court of a.P.,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

B.Saritha Vs K. Srisailam Goud and Another

Shaik Altaf Vs Sri Syed Mahmood Hussain and Another

Syed Sadiq, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Abdul Khadar and Another

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. N.Veeramma and 7 Others

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Bee Pasha