MOHAMMAD GOWHAR v. THE STATE OF A.P

The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused assailing the judgment dated 05.01.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.52 of 2014 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada (for short, ‘1st Appellate Court’) whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, by confirming conviction sentence imposed against appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) vide judgment dated 03.03.2014 passed in C.C.No.245 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 3

The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that: (a) The accused, a resident of Mandapeta, was the driver of a lorry bearing No. AP16 TU 9988 at the time of the incident. The deceased, Jatla Veera Venkata Ramana @ Veerababu (Deceased No.1) and Settibathula Gangabhavani (Deceased No.2), were residents of Samalkota. On the morning of 01.09.2010, Deceased No.1, along with his sister-in-law, Deceased No.2, visited a hospital in Pithapuram. Bhavani was the pillion rider on the motorcycle. While returning to Samalkota, around 11:45 A.M., near Kodandaramapuram village, the accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, hitting the motorcycle. As a result, Veerababu died on the spot, while Bhavani sustained severe injuries and was shifted to GGH, Kakinada, in an ambulance. (b) Following the incident, LW.1 (Sigatapu Satyanarayana Murthy) lodged a complaint at Samalkota Police Station. Based on the report, PW.7 (K. Laxmana Reddy), Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr. No.162/2010 under Sections 304A and 338 IPC and initiated an investigation. PW.7 visited the scene, prepared the scene observation report (Ex.P2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P7), and arranged for photographs through PW.4 (Teku Srinivasu). He conducted inquests over both deceased persons in the presence of relevant witnesses and sent the bodies for postmortem. Deceased No.2 succumbed to injuries on 08.09.2010 during treatment. PW.10 (Dr. G. Ravi Bhaskar) conducted the autopsy of Veerababu and opined the cause of death as complications due to pelvic fracture (Ex.P9). PW.11 (Dr. Vijaya Ratna Raju) conducted the autopsy of Bhavani and attributed the cause of death to head injury (Ex.P10). (c) PW.8 (N. Siva Rama Krishna), MVI, inspected the lorry and confirmed no mechanical defect. The accused was arrested on 02.09.2010 by PW.9 (M. Venkateswara Rao), Inspector of Police, Peddapuram, and 4 remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 304A IPC.

The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, took cognizance under Sec.304A IPC against the accused. Upon the appearance of the accused, copies of the documents furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., with the substance of the accusation explained to the accused in Telugu for the offences under Section 304A of the IPC. He denied the accusation levelled against him and pleaded not guilty, claiming his innocence.

During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 and documents Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses to the accused in Telugu, on that the accused denied the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses and stated that the incident had not occurred due to his mistake, and the motorcyclist fell on the road. The accused reported that he has no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

The trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence as stated supra vide its judgment, dated 03.03.2014 in C.C.No.245 of 2010 and convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for eighteen (18) months for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. Felt aggrieved by 7. unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2014 before the 1st Appellate Court, and the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal the aforesaid conviction and sentence, and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused. Felt 5 aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2014.

During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is pressing the revision petition only insofar as the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is concerned, but the petitioner is not challenging the conviction under Section 304A of the IPC. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that the sentence imposed may be modified. It is contended that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner of his family. Furthermore, the petitioner has no prior criminal record.

Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Does the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrant any interference? P O I N T:

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner has no prior criminal record, including any violations of traffic rules. It is further submitted that in similar cases involving a higher number of deaths and injuries, this court has, on multiple occasions, reduced the sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, a request is made for the court to take a lenient view. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, in the alternative, prays for a reduction of the sentence and places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paul George V. State of NCT of Delhi1. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner-accused may be granted the benefit of the sentence already undergone. He further brought to the notice of this court the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant V. State (Union Territory of Delhi)2, wherein the Apex Court, considering the facts of the case, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two (2) months to one (1) month of rigorous imprisonment. 1 (2008) 4 SCC 185 2 MANU/SC/0149/1976 6

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab V. Dil Bahadur3 after referring to the judgment of the State of M.P. V. Bablu4 held as under: “the prime objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is necessary with the gravity nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is therefore, the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as awarding the lesser sentence encourages any criminal and as a result of the same, the society suffers. "

In Thangasamy V. State of Tamil Nadu5, the offences alleged and conviction ordered was for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC. The vehicle involved was a Government passenger Bus and the accident had resulted in the death of four persons. After conviction, when ultimately the accused approached the Hon'ble Apex Court, a request was made before the Hon'ble Apex Court for reducing the sentence. In that regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court re-emphasized its policy on sentencing in the following words: "84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The Courts have evolved certain principles the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. "

It is a well-established principle of sentencing policy that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven offence. The sentence should be neither nominal nor excessive. What constitutes a