Dismissed

Middoddi Raj Kumar , Raj v. the State of Ap.

Telangana HC10 Dec 2024CRLRC/2207/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against concurrent conviction under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC for a fatal road accident. Conviction confirmed as no grounds to discredit evidence were shown; sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone under Section 428 CrPC while fines were maintained.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone under Section 428 CrPC with default clause set off; fine maintained; conviction confirmed.

Middoddi Raj Kumar , Raj Vs the State of Ap. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

e of f) aetl^{sLrp: rhe.pet,i3:",1,$".iffiy$fl,'t:rt} iJ3noi"^{f'.?fifl*iB R3l ![} )bri ir'cii.n.C"No2207^{or 2013'}

¶2

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^H|GH ""rTf3$Jff^BtsE

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THETWELFTHDAYOT PE^gE,I/IBER} "'-'iwo iHousAND AND TwENTY FouR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEE'V'VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIM tNAL REV^{rsloN CASENO: 2207 0F2013}

¶7

Criminal^{RevisionCaseunder Sections SSI a-!!'!^ot Cr'P'C' aggrieved by the} Judoment^{dated 23'-09'2is";;"i"-il ;'''l't'to'zzrnotron the file of the court} of tlie Special^{Judge for #i';;C;;;""} 'na"'^{scs and sTs (PoA) Act-cum-vl} Addl. Metropotitan^{sessi'Jn;'il;;'-!;l19l"b'dPreferredasainst the} order^{passedin c'c'No'tii'"i ziiiirt oe'os'zorr on the file of the courtof the} ii 3p.lirr^{rvr"gistrate at Hvderabad'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Driver^{R/o. H.No'104-C/558} lvliddoddi^{Raj Kumar@ Rai' S/o' M Pochaiah'Occ} Addagutta,^{Secunderabao'}

¶10

..Petitioner (Accused/APPellant)

¶11

AND

¶12

ram PS.,^{SecunderabadReP bY its} The State^{of AP., Through SHO''Gopalapu} p'.lEriJ'rirJ"J"titor'itigh^{colrt of AP' Hvderabad}

¶13

"'ResPondents

¶14

l.A. NO: 1oF20^{,,t3(CRLRCMP. NO: 3286oF 201 3}

¶15

petition under section 151^{Cpc prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to} enlarge the^{petitionerherein on bail by suspendingthe conviction and Sentence} imposed in^{CC No.88/2011 dt 08'03 2013 on the file of the Courtof the Xl} SpecialMagistrateatHyderabadasconfirmedinCrl.A.No.2T3l2Ol3onthefileof the Court^{of the Special Judgefor trial of offencesunderSCs'and STs(POA)} AcLCum-Vl^{Addl. Metropolitan SessionsJudge' Secunderabad dt 23-9-2013'}

¶16

3 Counset for the petitioner(s): SRl. RAMESH BOMMIDENI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E.GANESH, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

THE^{IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEE' V' VENUC'OPAL} CRIMINA^LRE VISION CASEN^o.22O7of2013

¶19

ORD ER:

¶20

The^{present cdminal revision case is frled under} Section^{397and' 401 of Cr'P'Cseeking to set aside ttre} Judgrnent,^{sentenceand conviction Passed bY the} trial of^{Offencesunder} learned^{SPecial Judgefor} Additional^MetroPolitan SCs/STs(POA)^Act-cum-Vl Sessions^{Judge' Secunderabad' in Crl'A'No'273of 20 13'} dated^{23'O9'2OL2(for short the appellate Court') by} conhrming^{the Judgmentof the learned XI Special} Magistrate^{at Hyderabad in C'C'No'88of 2O11' dated} 08.03.20^{13 (for short 'the trial Court')'}

¶21

2.^{The brief facts of the case are that on 29'O7'2O|O} onesriB.SubashChristopherlodgedacomplaint stating that^{on 2g'O7'2OtOhe received messagedthat} his son B.Vishal^{Alexandermet with alaccidentwhile} going on his scooter^{bearing No'AP 1OA T 3667 Bajaj} '

¶22

..r. .. r-i! !,,X4", :r&&a3t

¶23

¶24

pulsar (Red Colour) with Maruthi Omni fWhite Colour) bearing No.Ap 29 V 337g at about 05.00 pM and he was shifted to hospital. By the time he reached the hospital he was informed that his son died and he a_lso came to know that his friend by name Mr.Solomon also sustained injuries. On receipt of the complaint, the Sub_ Inspector of police, Gopalapuram, registered a case in Crime No.2g3 of 2O1O under Section 304_Aand 337 of Indian penal Code and issued FIR.

¶25

During the course of investigation he received information from the hospital, as the Doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous, he altered Section of law from 332 of IpC to 33g of IpC. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 3O4_A and 338 of IPC.

¶26

In support of its case, the prosecution examined rjWs.¹ to iirry 6 and got marked Exs.pl to p8. On behalf of

¶27

¶28

¶29

the accused^{no oral and d'ocumentary evidencewas}

¶30

adduced.

¶31

After^{aPPreciating the oraland documenta4r} evidence^{on record, the leamed Magistrate has convicted} the accused^{for the offence under Section3O4-A of} Indian^{Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo} Rigorous^{Imprisonmentfor a period of six months and} also with^{a hne of Rs'5,000/- in default one month} Simple^{Imprisonmentand accusedalso found guilty for} the offence^{under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code and} sentenced^{to pay a frne of Rs'SOO/-in default one month} simple^{imPrisonment'}

¶32

Aggrieved^{bywhich, thepetitioner/appellant} preferred,^{CriminalAppeal No'273of 2013before the} appellate^{Court, the learned appellate Court after} examining^{the material facts before itand upon} considering^{the trial court judgement in C'C'No'88 of} 2011 has^{dismissedthe criminal appealconf,rrming t-tre}

¶33

¶34

¶35

judgment and conviction passed by the trial Court. Challenging the same the present revision is filed.

¶36

7 No representation for the petitioner/accused. 8. Heard the learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent-State a,d perused the record. 9. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused did not appear and place anything before this Court, which woirld discredit the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction rs concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2010 and this revision was liled in the year 2073 arrd almost 12 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in

¶37

¶38

the interest^{of justrce'itis exPedientto reducethe} to the Period^alreadY sentence^{ofimPrisonment} petitioner/^{accused while} undergone^{bY the revlslon} maintaining^{the fine imPosed bY the trial Court'}

¶39

d,ismissed.^The 10. The^{Criminal Revision Case rs} trial^{Court as well as} conviction^{imPosed bY the} However,^{the sentence} appellate^{Court is confirmed'} imposed^{bythe trialCourt toundergo Rigorous} imprisonment^{for a period of six monthsand the default} clauseissetofftotheperiodalreadyundergonebythe revision^{petitioner/accused'under Section 428 of} Cr.P.C,^{while marntaining the hne intact imposed by the} trial Court^{against him'}

¶40

Pendingmiscellaneousapplications,ifany,shall

¶41

.1ild^ql,osed.

¶42

/ITRUE^COPY'/

¶43

Sd/. T.^{VIJAY KUMAR} EPUTY^REGISTRAR SECTION^OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

1 The Soecial Judge^{for trial of offence-sunder SC} S, nd STs^{(POA)Act-Cum-Vl} ad

¶46

' ndir. foliiopoli[a"n sessions Judge' secunderab

¶47

The Xl Speciat^{Magistrateat Hyderabad'}

¶48

One CC to Sri. Ramesh^{Bommideni, Advocate} IOPUCI

¶49

Two CCs to pu.

¶50

Two CD Copies. blic Prosecutor, uEn court for the State of felangana. [lt]ll

l I l l

HIGH COURT

DATED:1Q11212024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.220t of 2013

¶58

,4a= t'- '
,/ ,r_./t,--.J. 1t.. ,*'.-c. ',
'1, !:
0 2 l;EP 20fr
,:/
. ),'

¶59

CRIMINAL^{REVISION CASE} GATIONS.

¶60

TitEil\t-us:.

Middoddi Raj Kumar , Raj v. the State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Middoddi Raj Kumar , Raj v. the State of Ap.

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

Sampangi Narsimlu, and 2 Others, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Jenigala Mahesh Yadav Vs v Nikhila

Palavarapu Shailaja Vs The State of Telangana

Duvvapu Venkatesh , Venkay , Bandodu, Eg.Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Gangaram Seth M.S.Prakash Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gaddemeedi Parshu Ramulu Vs the State of A.P.