Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 263 (AP)

Nakkaraju Appala Raju, Visakhapatnam v. P P Hyd

2025-02-12

V.SRINIVAS

body2025
JUDGMENT: V. SRINIVAS, J. Assailing the judgment dated 10.03.2016 in Crl.A.No.226 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 25.10.2012 in C.C.No.492 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Special Magistrate II at Visakhapatnam, for the offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 14.03.2016 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide order in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1128 of 2016. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). On 10.07.2011 at about 09.30 a.m., while P.W.1 along with seven others proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 31 TA 8340 (hereinafter referred to as “crime auto”), when they crossed the Leprosy Colony, NH.5 Road, Tatichetlapalem, the accused being driving of the said auto, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed a stationed Lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 5335, resulted the inmates in the auto sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment one Murthuza Valli (hereinafter called as “the deceased”) succumbed to injuries. ii). Basing on the Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, P.W.12-S.I of Police, IV Town Traffic Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.168 of 2011 under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.492 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Special Magistrate II at Visakhapatnam, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC, vide judgment dated 25.10.2012, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two (2) months, also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of twenty (20) days and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of ten (10) days, for the respective offences. 5. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.226 of 2012, before the Court of learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 10.03.2016, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 is not corroborated with each other and cannot be relied upon; that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the offences alleged against the petitioner; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3, who are injured coupled with testimony of P.W.5, who is eye-witnesses to the incident, clearly goes to show that P.Ws.1 and 3 and other inmates in the auto sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the same by the accused, resulted death of the deceased; that the testimony of P.Ws.8 and 11 coupled with Exs.P.3 and P.6 wound certificates shows the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 3 in the incident; that the testimony of P.W.9 coupled with Ex.P.4 postmortem certificate shows that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the incident; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner for the said offences; that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining P.Ws.1 to 12 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.9, thereby, the present revision has no merits. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 3 as well death of the deceased in the incident, involvement of the crime auto in the accident and identity of the accused as driver of the crime auto by the date of incident. 12. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences. 13. It is the categorical testimony of P.W.1-injured eye witness that on 10.07.2011 at about 09.30 a.m., while she was proceeding in crime auto with seven passengers, when they reached to Tatichetlpalem junction, the driver of the crime auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the stationed lorry, resulted the passengers in the said auto sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to injuries. 14. The testimony of P.W.1 is fully corroborated with the testimony of P.W.3, who is another injured eyewitness. Nothing incriminating was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve their testimony. Furthermore, it is the categorical testimony of P.W.5 eyewitness to the incident that when he was in traffic duty, the crime auto hit the stationed lorry and the inmates in the auto sustained injuries. No contra material was produced before the Courts below to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5. 15. Moreover, the testimony of P.W.10 motor vehicle inspector as well Ex.P.5 report issued by him categorically shows that the accident that occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. Viewing from any angle, prosecution categorically proved the guilt of the accused for the said offences beyond all doubt. The testimony of P.Ws.8 and 11 coupled with Exs.P.3 and P.6 wound certificates show the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 3 in in incident. 16. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand., (2004) 7 SCC 659 that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court.” 17. By taking into consideration of above evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12 and Exs.P.1 to P.9, the trial Court came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC, which was affirmed by the first Appellate Court. 18. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Courts below, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by the Court below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses and there is no material to disbelieve the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.9. 19. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that there is rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the incident and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Courts below in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offences. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC. 20. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the accident was occurred on 10.07.2011 and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the Courts below. He brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi)., AIR 1977 SC 892 wherein the APEX Court considered the facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one (1) month rigorous imprisonment. 21. He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi., AIR 1973 SC 2127 wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 22. 21. He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi., AIR 1973 SC 2127 wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 22. In this connection, it is relevant to make a mention a pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka , [4 (2008) 8 SCC 225 ] , wherein the relevant observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.15 and 16 was that “the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of a precious human life. It was a rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition. Having regard to the all these facts, a lenient view can be taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced.” 23. Even in Nagaraj v. Union of India., 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 209 the APEX Court at paragraph Nos.18 and 19 held that “the appellant/accused has already undergone one month jail sentence; second, the offence in question neither against the society nor it involves any moral turpitude and nor it has resulted in causing any harm or injury to any human being except causing some damage to the railway property, viz., one railway crossing gate; and lastly, the offence is now 13 years old. In view of the aforementioned three reasons and in the interest of justice, therefore of the considered opinion that the six months jail sentence awarded to the appellate by the three Courts below deserves to be altered to what he has already undergone by the appellant till date.” 24. As well in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana , [62019 (3) Crimes 89] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.” 25. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to be happened on 10.07.2011 and by this time thirteen (13) years have already been lapsed, but there was a loss of one human life and injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 3. 26. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that of three (3) months from six (6) months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. 27. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused to that of three (3) months instead of six (6) months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The rest of the judgment dated 25.10.2012 in C.C.No.492 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Special Magistrate II at Visakhapatnam, which was affirmed by the judgment dated 10.03.2016 in Crl.A.No.226 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, shall stand confirmed. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Special Magistrate II at Visakhapatnam to serve the sentence imposed against him, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner/accused. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.