Partly allowed

Gotte Narsaiah v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P., H.C., Hyd.

Telangana HC7 Mar 2024CRLRC/283/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged convictions under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC arising from a fatal road accident. The High Court confirmed the conviction but, acknowledging the twelve-year pendency and mental agony, commuted the sentence to three months simple imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed to modify the sentence to three months simple imprisonment; bail bonds cancelled. Criminal Revision Case dismissed.

Gotte Narsaiah Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Its… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

NorE:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High court dated 12-2-1013 in crr.R.c.Mp No. 430 of 2013 in cri.RC No. 283 of 201 5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 283 OF 2013

¶8

criminal Revision case filed under section 3s7 & 4o1 of crpc against the Judgment dated 28.01.2013 made in crl.A.No.18 of 2o11 on the file of the court of the I Additional District and sessions Judge at Karimnagar, preferred against the Judgment order dated 27.1 .20'll passed in cc No.276 of 2008 on the file of the Court cif the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gotte Narsaiah, S/o. Parsharamulu

¶11

...REVISION PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the A.p

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P. SHAMANTHAK HANDE, AMTCUS CURIAE

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. KHAJA VIZARATH ALl,

¶17

ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

:1+, i.i-rri

¶20

-.,

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶22

CRIMINAL RE\IISION^{CASE No.283 0F 2013}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal^{Revision Case is filed by tlre revision} petitioner/A2 aggrieved^{by the judgment dated :28'01'2013} in Crl.A.No.18 of^{2Oll,passed by thelearned} Additional District^{&SessionsJudge, Karimnagar,} confirming the^{judgmentdated 27 -OI'2011 in C'C'No'276} of 2008^{passedby the learned JudicialMagistrateof First} Class, Vemulawada.

¶25

Heard Mr. P. Shamanthak^{Hande, AmicusrCuriae for} the revision^{petitionerald Mr. I{haja VizarathA1i, learned} Assistant Public^{Prosecutor appearingfor the respondent-} State.

¶26

The brief facts^{of the case are thaton} 12.O2.2OO4 at 8:15^{a.m., the defacto complainant and his} wife boarded^{A.P.S.R.T.Cbus bearing No'AP-1O'Z-91O5at} Jagtial and when the^{said bus reached Gangadhara Petrol} Pump, about 9:OO^{a.n, a lorry bearing No'AP-tl-1674, had}

¶27

¶28

¶29

head on collision due to the rash and negligent driving of the respective drivers of A.P.S.R.T.C bus and the 1orry (Tipper), due to which two innocent children succumbed to the injuries sustained by them and rest of the inmates of the bus sustained injuries. Basing on the complaint given by P.W. 1, who is the injured witness, a case in Cr.No.l29 /2004 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-4', 337 and 338 of IPC against A1 and 42. Later, on completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 in C.C.No.276 of 2O08 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada.

¶30

During the course of trial, PWs. 1 to 15 were examined and Exs.Pl to P18 were marked. In defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentaqr evidence available on record, vide judgment dated 27.O1.2011 in C.C.No.276 of 2OO8 convicted A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo Imprisonment

¶31

¶32

for a period of 2 (two) years each for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced A.1 and A2 to undergo imprisonment for a period of one yeal each for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and further sentenced A1 and A,2 to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently.

¶33

Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 27.O1 .'2Oll in C.C.No.276 of 2OO8, the petitioner/Al2 preferred Crl.A.No.lB of 2O11 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. l\fter hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on consideration of oral and documentarlr eviderrce available on record, the appellate Court vide judg;ment dated 28.01 .2013 in Crl.A.No.18 of 2011, partly allou,ed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and serrtence dated 27.Ol.2oll in C.C.No.276 of 2008 passed by the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and the accused are acqu.itted for the

¶34

¶35

said offence. The appellate Court^{observed thatthe} prosecution proved the guilt of the^{accused beyondall} reasonable doubts and the^{evidenceadduced by the} de-facto complainant clearly^{established and proved that} the accused committed the^{offences punishableunder} Sections 304-A and 337^{of IPC and, accordingly, dismissed} the appeal so far as the^{offencespunishableunder Sections} 3O4-A and 337 of IPC are^{concernedby confirming the} judgment dated 27.01.2011 in C.C.No.276 of^{20O8 passed} by the trial Court. Assailing^{thesarne, the revision} petitioner /A2 has filed the^{present Criminal Revision Case'}

¶36

During the course of hearing,^{learned counsel for the} revision petitioner/A2 contended^{that both the Courts} below erred in convicting^{the revisionpetitioner/A2 for the} offences punishable under^{Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC} in the absence of any^{cogent and reliable evidence'} He further contended that^{both the Courtsbelowought to} have seen that the evidence^{on record is not sufficientto} convict the revision^{petitioner underSections3O4-Aand} 337 of IPC as the evidence^{onrecord consists}

¶37

¶38

'r/

¶39

contradictions and omissions. He further contended that both the Courts below ought to have seen that only interested witnesses were examined and no rndependent witness was examined to prove the guilt of the accused. He further contended that both the Courts below ought to have seen that no identification parade was; conducted before filing the charge sheet. Therefore, ider,tification of the revision petitioner as the driver for the crime lorry (Tipper) for the first time in the Court by the witnesses is not believable and such evidence available on record cannot form basis to convict the revision petitioner. He further contended that both the Courts be.l.ow erred in appreciating the evidence on record. He further contended that this case is pending for a long time, due to which the revision petitioner/A2 suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court ard that slnce twelve long years have already been elapsed from the date of filing of this Revision, learned counsel for the revision pr:titioner/A2 prays this Court to take a lenient view and allow the Criminal Revision Case. \

¶40

¶41

On the other hand, the learned Assistant public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, after appreciating the oral and documentar5r evidence, found the revision petitioner/A2 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. Further submits that it is an undisputed fact that the A1 and A2 i.e., driver of A.p.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9 105 and driver of the Lorry (Tipper) bearing No.AP-B-1674 caused the accident, which took away the precious lives of two innocent children due to their rash and negligent driving and it is proved beyond doubt that both A1 and A2 are responsible for the death of two children and for the injuries of the other persons, hence, a lenient view cannot be taken on the revision petitioner I A2 and sought for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.

¶42

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the revision petitioner/A2 suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and, as rightly

¶43

¶44

contended by the learned counsel for the^revision petitioner/A2, twelve long years have already been elapsed from the date of filing of this Revision, this Court^is inclined to take a lenient view on the revision^{petitioner/A2} and modify the sentence imposed by the appellate Court, while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/A2 for the^offence punishable under Section 304-4 and 337 of IPC.

¶45

\ \

¶46

Accordingly, while confirming the conviction imposed by the appellate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 304-4 and 337 of I.P.C, the revision petitioner/A2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a^period of three (3) months, instead of imprisonment for two⁽²⁾ years, for the offence punishable under Sect-ion ll04-A of IPC; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month, for the offence punishable u nder Section 337 of IPC instead of imprisonment for six (6) months Both the sentences imposed against the revision petitioner/A2 under Sections 3O4-A and 337 of IPC shall run concr-rrently. The period of imprisonrnent already

¶47

¶48

l I lI

¶49

undergone by the revision petitioner/A2 shall be given set-off. The revision petitioner/A2 shall surrender before the trial Court to serve out the remaining period of sentence, forthwith. The bail bonds of the revision petitioner I A2 sha_ll stand cancelled.

¶50

With the above said modification in respect of sentence of imprisonment, the Crimina_l Revision Case is dismissed.

¶51

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶52

closed.

¶53

Sd/. T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO OFFTCER

To,

The I Additional^{District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar'}

¶58

The Judicial^{trilagistrateof First Class,Vemulawada'}

¶59

The Station House^{Officer, Gangadhara Police Station}

¶60

4.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶61

One CC to SRl.^{P. SAJANKUI\iIAR,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶62

one CC to SRl.^{PARAMPALLY SHAMANTHAK HANDE, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶63

Two CD Copies

R/VH

I3t

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0710312024

ORDER

1 irE ST ATE o
(
o
olq 1? Jut $lt
(.)
t
DESprr
q

¶70

CRLRC.No.283 of²⁰¹³

¶71

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C

Gotte Narsaiah v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P., H.C., Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gotte Narsaiah v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P., H.C., Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Amboji Buddaiah Vs Yede Kamalakar Rao

T.Gangadhar Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Pp and Another

M/s Venugopal Transport and Company Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Smt. Sannella Yadamma, R.R. Dist. and 3 Othrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Nazia Begum , Nasiya Sulthana, Nalgonda Dist and 4 Others Vs Prl Secy, Home Dept., Hyd and 4 Ot