Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 409 (AP)

Syed Saleem Pasha v. State of A. P.

2022-04-13

K.SURESH REDDY

body2022
JUDGMENT K.Suresh Reddy, J. - Questioning the Judgment, dated 14-03-2007, passed by the VII additional District and Sessions Judge(F.T.C), Madanapalle, Chittoor District in C.a.No.212 of 2005, the petitioner/accused filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 2. The petitioner is accused in C.C.No.337 of 2001 on the file of the Court of II additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. He was tried by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sections. 304-a IPC and under Sections 134 (a)&(b) r/w.187 of the Motor Vehicles act. 3. after completion of trial, the learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section.304-a IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year besides to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month; further the petitioner/accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 134(b) r/w.187 of M.V. act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. Out of the total fine amount, a sum of Rs.4,500/- was directed to be paid to the mother of the deceased-Pw.2 towards expenses under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. 4. aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Criminal appeal No.212 of 2005 before the Court of VII additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle. The learned VII additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 5. The case of the prosecution is that on 12-09-2001 at about 3.30 P.M near Paletamma Temple, Chippili situated on Mandanapalle-Bangalore road, the petitioner/accused being the driver of the private Bus bearing No.Ka 02 a 2552 proceeding towards Madanapalle from Bangalore, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased-pedestrian boy and ran over him. as a result of which, the deceased-boy crushed under the wheels of the offending Bus and died instantaneously. Later, the petitioner/accused fled away from the scene. Later, on the complaint, police registered a case in Cr.No.153 of 2001 and took up investigation. after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet. 6. The case was taken on file as CC No.337 of 2001 on the file of the Court of II additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. 7. Later, on the complaint, police registered a case in Cr.No.153 of 2001 and took up investigation. after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet. 6. The case was taken on file as CC No.337 of 2001 on the file of the Court of II additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7 and marked EXs.P-1 to P-6. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. after closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the version of the prosecution witnesses. after completion of trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused as aforesaid, which was confirmed by the appellate court. 9. Heard both sides. 10. This court perused the entire evidence on record. 11. as seen from the evidence of Pw.2, who is none other than the mother of the deceased-boy, it is crystal clear that as on the date of alleged accident, she was going along with the deceased on the left side of the road and when they reached Paletamma temple, the offending vehicle came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and run over her son, as a result of which, the deceased-boy died on the spot. Further, as can be seen from the evidence of Pw.3, who is doing cultivation in the fields situated nearby the Paletamma temple, he categorically stated in his evidence that he observed the offending vehicle coming at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner on the date of alleged incident and due to which the incident happened. Therefore, having considered the entire evidence on record, this court did not find any reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below. 12. However, as can be seen from the record, since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, this court directed the trial court to issue N.B.W against the petitioner/accused. Pursuant to the order of this court, the petitioner/accused was apprehended on 09-01-2022 and was sent to judicial custody and since then he has been languishing in Sub Jail, Madanapalle. 13. Therefore, taking into consideration of the above aspect and taking into consideration that the incident took place on 12-09-2001 i.e., nearly 21 years back, this court is inclined to take a lenient view with regard to sentence of imprisonment. 14. 13. Therefore, taking into consideration of the above aspect and taking into consideration that the incident took place on 12-09-2001 i.e., nearly 21 years back, this court is inclined to take a lenient view with regard to sentence of imprisonment. 14. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by both the courts below. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment has been reduced from one(1) year to the period already undergone by the petitioner/accused. With regard to imposition of fine, the same is unaltered. Since the petitioner/accused is in judicial custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. 15. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.