M. RAJU v. P P HYD

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 01.08.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.159 of 2012 passed by the Hon'ble II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni confirming the conviction under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC vide Judgment dated 29.08.2012 passed in C.C.No.351 of 2008 passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2651 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No. 351 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District by suspending the sentence passed against him pending disposal of the above revision and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner:

#1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent:

#1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1617 OF 2014 ORDER: The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence under Section 337 IPC thereby he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC. Against such order of conviction, the petitioner approached the appellate Court wherein the appellate Court has taken a lenient view and reduced the sentence and directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and three months imprisonment for offence under Section 338 IPC and also one month imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 IPC. Both the learned Courts below directed that the sentence shall run concurrently. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the instant criminal revision case has been preferred.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly submits that the incident was happened in the year 2008. Since then, the petitioner is suffering agony for running the litigation. Moreover, the evidence lead before the learned trial Court is full of contradictions. The learned trial Court should have acquitted the petitioner. He further submits that this Court taken a lenient view for the long pending case and passed an order dated 12.11.2025 in Crl.R.C.No.42 of 2011 and by adopting the same view, this revision case can be disposed.

#3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised some objections and submits that due to negligent and rash act of the accused person/petitioner, one person has lost his life and some other passengers received injuries. He further submits that the learned trial Court has consider the evidence on 4 record and discrepancies appeared in the evidences have also been explained by the learned trail Court. He further submits that the learned appellate Court has already taken the lenient view due to long pendency of the matter. He further submits that when the offence has sufficiently proved, the order of conviction cannot be set aside.

#4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears in the present case that the petitioner was an auto driver. It further appears from the prosecution case that the petitioner after crossing engineering college at 9.30 a.m., he drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed thereby he lost control over it, resultantly, the auto turned turtle and as a result, the passengers received injuries and one of the passenger succumbed to the injuries at hospital. In the evidence it appears that some of the witnesses are not properly supported the prosecution case and there are discrepancies in the evidence. One circumstance appeared before the learned trial Court and suggestions were, when the crime auto was travelling on the left side, all of a sudden to avoid the collusion with the opposite coming vehicle, he hastily drove auto to right side of the road thereby it turned turtle. Learned trial Court is of observation that there was a turn in the road, the accused must have run slowly in the turn, but he ran the auto in rash and negligent manner. Learned trial Court has also scanned the evidences of the prosecution and is of view that the accused person was running crime auto with more number of passengers. Learned trial Court has also observed that such over load of the auto itself is an act of negligent of the accused person.

#5. I have perused the observations of the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court. In the present case, the accused person was an auto driver. It has been proved by the learned trial Court that the auto driver i.e., the accused drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and there may be some circumstances that one opposite side vehicle may suddenly appeared thereby accident may be imminent; but at the same time, the negligence and recklessness on the part of the accused person/petitioner 5 cannot be avoided. The petitioner has overloaded the auto which has been proved by the prosecution so in this case the conviction under Section 304-A IPC has been sufficiently proved.

#6. However, considering the other aspects regarding the long pendency of the instant criminal litigation it appears that the alleged incident happened in the year 2008 now more than 15 years has already been elapsed. The petitioner has faced the trial before the learned trial Court and he was attending before the Courts. The petitioner being a rustic person must have suffered agony of long pendency of litigation. The offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC has provided to award punishment for imprisonment or fine or with both. In this case it appears that the petitioner has suffered immense agony due to long pendency of the litigation, which cannot be avoided. This Court has accepted the order of conviction by the learned Courts below but I think it is necessary to reduce the award of imprisonment upto the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, as the petitioner made a fine of Rs.5,000/-, he is further directed to pay a further fine of Rs.2,000/- before the trail Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of finding of this order.

#7. On the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Date: 13.11.2025 SPP ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1617 of 2014 SPP

13.11.2025