Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 342 (AP)

KUPPAM CHALAPATHI RAO v. State Of A. P.

2002-03-01

body2002
S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred by the accused against the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and imposition of fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default simple imprisonment, for two months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and further fine of Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for two weeks for the offence under Section 337 IPC awarded by the I Addl-Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet, in C. C. No. 169/99 and also as confirmed by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur, in crl. A. No. 150/98. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that the accused left with his jeep bearing no. AP 71 2443 on 6-7-1997 from chilakaluripet to go over to Narasaraopet in a rash and negligent manner and went to the extreme left side of the road with a view to overtake the vehicle going ahead, resulting in the jeep turning turtle. It lead to the death of Garnepui Issac Abraham and Thelukutla anantha Narayana, and also injuries to k. Venkateswara Rao and Lakireddy anantharami Reddy. The accused pleaded not guilty for the offences under Section 304-A and 337 IPC. After trial, the learned magistrate found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The learned magistrate also found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 337 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for two weeks. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned magistrate, the accused carried the matter in crl. A. No. 150/98 before the IV Addl. Sessions judge, Guntur. The learned IV Addl. Sessions judge, Guntur confirmed the judgment of the learned Magistrate. ( 3 ) AS against the judgment confirming the conviction and sentence of the learned magistrate in C. C. No. 169/99 by the IV addl. Sessions Judge, the present criminal revision case is filed by the accused being the appellant herein. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that except the sole testimony of PW9 there is no other evidence corroborating the evidence of PW9. Sessions Judge, the present criminal revision case is filed by the accused being the appellant herein. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that except the sole testimony of PW9 there is no other evidence corroborating the evidence of PW9. He also urged before me that the accused is not examined about the quantum of sentence and there is no identification of the person who drove the vehicle. My attention is also drawn by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner about the failure to give reasons for not granting benefits under Section 360 Cr. P. C to the accused. Adverting to the same, PW1 spoke in categorical terms that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. PW9 who is an independent witness and has no axe to grind against the accused. PWs. 1 and 2 spoke about the incident. They have also no motive to speak falsehood though they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. They categorically stated that they received injuries. PW9 identified the person who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. There is proper appraisal of the evidence by the Addl. Munsif magistrate, Narasaraopet. Both the Courts below have rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the accused. ( 5 ) COMING to the aspect of non- examination of the accused about the quantum of sentence, my attention is drawn to a decision reported in Manikyam v. State through the Sub-Inspector of Police vikarabad P. S. , 1993 (2) An. WR 79. The relevant portion at para-6 of the above decision reads as follows :"the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure prescribed under section 248 (2) of the Code and has not questioned the accused regarding sentence. Though Section 248 of the Code occurred in chapter XIX of the Code relating to trial of warrant cases by Magistrates, since the said procedure was intended to benefit the accused by ascertaining the factors to be taken into consideration while awarding punishment, it is desirable to adopt the same procedure in the trial of summons cases by magistrates coming under Chapter XX of the Code. " ( 6 ) IT is clear from the principles laid down by this Court in the above decision that the accused have to be examined as regards sentence in summons case also. This has not been done in the present case. Therefore, I agree with the contention of the learned Counsel that the accused have to be examined as regards to sentence in summons case also. In Chandrashwar sharma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 245 , the Supreme Court has categorically stated that the Court had to give reasons for not granting benefits under Section 360 cr. P. C where it could have dealt with the accused. This aspect also not considered by the lower Court. There is much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. I agree with his contention on this aspect also. It is clearly laid down by the Supreme Court that mandatory duty is cast on the Court to record in its judgment specific reasons for not granting benefits of Section 360 cr. PC. Failure of justice occurred in not following the said mandatory duty as well as non-examination of the accused about the quantum of sentence. Therefore, the matter needs to be sent back for reconsideration regarding the quantum of sentence and also for specific reasons for not granting benefit of Section 360 Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) TO sum up 1 find that the material is sufficient to prove that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which constituted an offence under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. The lower Court failed to give reasons for not granting benefit of Section 360 Cr. P. C to the accused and failed to examine him about the quantum of sentence. The matter has to be sent back to the lower Court for reconsideration by I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, narasaraopet, in the light of the aforesaid principles laid down in the decisions. ( 8 ) IN the result, the conviction and sentence awarded by teamed Magistrate as confirmed by the learned Asst. Sessions judge, is set aside. The matter is sent back to the I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, narasraopet, for imposing suitable sentence or punishment, after hearing the accused regarding the quantum of sentence as well as giving specific reasons for not granting benefits of Section 360 Cr. PC. Sessions judge, is set aside. The matter is sent back to the I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, narasraopet, for imposing suitable sentence or punishment, after hearing the accused regarding the quantum of sentence as well as giving specific reasons for not granting benefits of Section 360 Cr. PC. The learned magistrate is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.