Dismissed

Kurva Shyamappa v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC11 Mar 2024CRLRC/651/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction for rash and negligent driving causing a labourer's death was confirmed by the High Court in revision, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone after seven years elapsed, while fine imposed by the trial court was maintained.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; two-year simple imprisonment set off to period already undergone; fine maintained.

Kurva Shyamappa Vs the State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY ,THE^{ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENry FOUR}

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENI'GOPAL}

¶4

cRt ALR vtslo CAS 6 2

¶5

Revision filed^{under Section397/401of cr.P.cagainstthe Judgment dated} 07.03.2013^{madein Crl.A. No.36of 2OOg on the file of the Districtand Sessions} iras;, ViLr.ord,^{R.R Districi preferred againstthe Order.passedin C'C'No'175.of} ;;06;ri"J^{22.Og.2oog on rhe iite of the c-ourt of the Judicial First classMagistrate,} Tandur.

¶6

Between:

¶7

vea^{rs' occD river'}

¶8

[,,16, ":l,f Li"ift^{;d'3*?T3gt'"'0,i3i8,,,'P#],i,9"}

¶9

...Petltioner'APPellanUAccused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State^{of A.P.,Rep , by its Public Prosecutor'High Court of Andhra Pradesh}

¶12

"'RespondenuRespondent

¶13

counser^{forthe petitioner: sRlG ARUN KUMAR}

¶14

Counsel forthe^{Sole Respondent:PUBLICPROSECUTOR}

¶15

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.551 of 2O13

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The present criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 07.03.2013 in Crl.A.No.36 of 2009 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad (for short'the appellate Court') confirming the Judgment dated 22.09.2009 in C.C.No.175 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur (for short'the trial Court').

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that on 17.03.2005, after unloading stones, the revision petitioner, drove the tractor/trailor bearing No.AP 28T 9537/9538 in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle, due to which, the said tractor/ trailor turnec-l turtle near Gonar Yellamma culvert. As a result, one of the labourers on the said tractor succumbed to grievous injuries on the spot. Hence, the

¶20

complaint.

¶21

¶22

During the course of hial, on behalf of the complainant, Pws.1 and 12 were examined and got marked^{Exs.P.1 to P.11.}

¶23

There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the accused^either oral oi documentary.

¶24

After appreciating the oral and documentary^evidence on record, the trial Court found that^{the accused} guilty^{of the} offences punishable under Section 304 of^IPC and^sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period^{of two years} with fine of Rs.200/-, tn default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. Further, the^accused found guilty of the offences punishable under^{Section 337 of} IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment^{for a} period of two months with fine of Rs.100/-, in default,^to undergo simple imprisonment for a period^{of 7 days.The} accused found not guitty for the offences under^Sections181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act and is acquitted under Section²⁵⁵⁽¹⁾ of Cr.P.C

¶25

¶26

I I

¶27

Aggrieved by which, the petitioner/appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2009 before the appellate Cour! the learned appellate Court after examining the material facts before it and upon considering the trial Court |udgment in C.C.No.175 of 2016 has dismissed the criminal appeal confirming the |udgment and conviction passed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

¶28

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and perused the record.

¶29

There is cbncurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the Iearned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused did not appear and place anything before this Court, which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offcnce took place in the year 2006 and this revision was filed in the year 2013 and

¶30

almost O7 years have passed and during this period, the revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is exPedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused while maintaining the compensation imposed by the trial Court.

¶31

The Criminal Revision case is dismissed. The conviction

¶32

imposed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed by the trial Court

¶33

to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of two years is set off to the period already undergone by the revision

¶34

petitioner,/accused, while maintaining the fine imposed by the

¶35

trial Court against him.

¶36

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶37

closed.

¶38

Sd,.^B.SATYAVAT GIS R ASSISTANT //TRUE^COPY/' SECTION^OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

1.^{The District and Sesstons Judge'Vikarabad' R R District(with records)}

¶41

2.^{The Judicial First Class Magistrate' Tandur'}

¶42

-g. O""^{CC t" SRIG ARUN KUMAR Advocate IOPUCI}

¶43

Two^{CCs to the PUBLICPROSECUTOR' High Court for the Stateof Telangana'} HYderabad

¶44

Two^{CD CoPies '---}

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110312024

ORDER CRLRC.No.651 ot 2A13

¶49

s 1 i{E 614r €
o
a
+ G-
oi)-,) 1 4 ltlAY 2024 o2
.L
* *
oFs pAt cH9O

¶50

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C

Kurva Shyamappa v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurva Shyamappa v. the State of A.P.

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 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

N. Jangaiah Vs Smt. Sridevi

Firoz Basha, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Rathod Swarupa Vs Smt. Vakati Karuna IAS