High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep., by public prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad Respondent. I.A. NO: 1OF 2014(CRLRCMP. NO:2332 oF 2014) Petition under section 397 (7) Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to suspend the Judgment and conviction dt.1g.06.2014 made in Crl.A.No.2S oI 201,2 on the file of the principar sessions Judge, at Khammam as confirming the Judgment and conviction in CC.No.12 o ot zdos on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, to release the petitioner on bail. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. padmalatha yadav, Amicus Curiae. Counsel for the Respondenk The public prosecutor. The Court made the following: ORDER El THE HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V'VENUGOPAL CRIMII\t,!L REVISION CASE No'1434 OF 2Ol{ o RDER This Cntnir iL1 Revision Case is filed under Slections 397 and 4OloftheC:oltc,fCriminalProcedure'1973(forslLort'Cr'P'C') aggrieved b1 tl.re.ludgment dated 18'06'2014 in Cri:rin'al Appeal No.25 of 20 2 pz-s;sed by the learned Principal Sessjons 'Iudge' at Khammam he'einafter referred as the learned appellate Court') confirming tlrtr ,ludgment of Conviction and Setrterrce dated 06.O2.2O12 ir (l (l.No'126 of 2OO4 passed by the learnerl Judicial Madhira (hereinafter relerrt'd as 'the Magistrate cI F'r r st Class, learned tria[ ( ]ot Lr-t').

02. Heard IVI;. l)aclmalatha Yadav, learned amicus clrriae for the revision petil ir)rrer and Sri E'Ganesh' learned Assistitnt Public Prosecutor lor ;',: spondent No' 1-State'

03. The bri:l f acts of the case are that on 10.Cr9 12C03 ' about 68 persons of Gr.lr'rrpadu Village were proceeding 1.o Nem:''likonijerla Village in l{:ri Van bearing No'AP 31U Oll25 to attend a Bharasala fu r r: 'i orr. At about 1 1 .30 hours, when th e v: rn reached near Anjare','ir S,u'amY temple of Wyra, the accusel dr ove it in a rash and nel1ig;t:nt manner' due to which, the vat-r turned turtle' ) In the said accident, the inmates sustained injuries and Smt. Kancherla Bodemma arrd Smt.Kancherla Sarojini succumbed to injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by pW. 1, the Poiice, Wyra Police Station registered a case in Crime No.77 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 304-4,-33g and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 1pC').

04. The learned tria,l Court, vide Judgment dated 06.02.2012 passed in C.C.No. 126 of 2004 found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 ald 337 of the IpC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304-A of IpC and to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under Section 338 of IpC and a-lso to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, for the offence under Section 337 of IpC, in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred an appeal.

05. The learned appellate Court vide Judgment dated

18.06.2014 dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2012, conhrming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Assailing the same, ah: p.:":la Cliqinal Revision Case is preferred. -- --,.,:'}_if," :}: 3

06. Learnerl ]rlttr-tsel for petitioner contended that the learned trial Court an'1 tae learned appellate Court failed t'r appreciate the evidence a,'zri:tble on record in proper persper:tivr' an'1 passed their respective ' rldgments' Therefore' he seeks to :;e1- rrside the impugned judlPrt'-' nt' 07. Learned r,r;rsistant Public Prosecutor submit"ed that the learned appellet-t: Court rightly passed the impugned 'ludgment and the inter frrrence of this Court is unwarranlted 'l'herefore' learned Adclitio lal Public Prosecutor seeks to disrniss this Criminal Revis,'r r Case'

08. Befort, rlie learned trial Court' on behalf ol prr;secution' PWs.1 to 311 '.vt'r'e examined and Exs'Pl to P72 rt'ert' mz"rked On behalf of tllt a'::used, none were examined and Exs D1 to D8 were markr,d

09. The letLt n:d trial Court upon careful consideralion of the material ar a lrrt'le on record found that PWs'2 to 15' an:l 17 to 20 who are the irlroates of the van and the witnesses to tlre incident had categcrl c:-'ll'r stated that the driver of the 'zan bearing No'AP 3iU 0325 dl.c,.l: it in a rash and negligent marrner du: to which, the van tut n':J turtle and in the said accidenr'' the inmates sustained i- jtLries and Smt' Kancherla Boderlma and ' i, 4 Smt.Kancherla Sarojini succumbed to injuries. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent and corroborating with each other, thereby, the prosecution established its case against accused that he drove the crime van at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the van turned turtle ald the inmates sustained injuries and two of the persons succumbed to injuries. Based on the oral artd documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court by way of its Judgment convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated suprc.

10. The learned appellate Court upon re-appreciating the material available on record confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 3O4-A, 338 and 337 of IpC. 1 1. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide Order dated ll.O7.201.4 passed in CRL.R.C.M.p.No.2332 of 2Ot4 suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending this Criminal Revision Case and enlarged the petitioner on bail. Thereafter, the matter under-went several adjournments.

12. In the case on hand, the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court concurrently held that the petitioner herein was guiltl. lor the offences under Sections 304_A, 33g and 5 337 of IPC, rvh ch linding, in my considered view' 'Coer; not call for interference, itt .:rercise of revisional jurisdictiorL urLder Section 397 and 401 of tLLe Cr'P'C'' as there are no grounds much less valid grouncls. c'l- Irregularities' or illegalities' to interiere with the well considele'l 'I u dgments of both the Courts

13. Having req:,t'd to the submissions made by both th': learned counsel, uprrL ':rnsidering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental agorr\r .:-rc hardship during the course o1' Iitigatiln before the tria-i cou -t rrs u,ell as the appellate court and as ten long years have el:Lps:d liom the date of filing this Revision' this Court is inclined to --irke a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed a6',a r rl ' the petitioner to the period of - mptisonment already undt:r11rl'ee bY him. The fine amount o.' Rr';'3O0/- 1S increased t() ?s' 1,55,00o/- (Rupees One Lakh l.rifty Five Thousand crrll ) to be paid by the petitioner v'ithjn a period of tn.." rrronr.hs t::m today to the credit of C'C No 126 of 2OO4 before the le arn,:d trial court. If petitioner fails tc c(rmply with the aforese'rcl chrect'ion, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of s x rr otrths On such deposit' the 1ega1 ht:irs 'rf the legal heirs of ttre rle r:eased are permitted to withdraw arl amount of lilin g aPProPriate equal ProPortion, bY Rs.1,50,OC''0/ 1n 6 application before the learned trial Court and Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State. r the remaining

14. Except the above modification, rest all the aspects of the Judgment of the tria_l Court are upheld. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR / /TRUECOPY// To, 1. The Principal Sessions Judge at Khammam 2. The Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Madhira 3. One CC to Ms. Padmalatha yadav, Amicus Curiae, lOpIJCl 4' one CC to the public prosecutor, High Court Burdings, Hyderabad. [opucJ 5. Two CD Copies. ICKIr,SL SECTION OFFICER j l i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:27 101'/2tt2> ORDER CRLRC.No.1434 o''1114 "4 {rl:: .S tdl oY -l) o ( ! JUt'l 21fi o ''- ..t/ ,

4.h Z Disposing of tL e Cr i nrinal Revision case' t I ; I I I i I I I ! i I I .. , i I I I