High Court · 2025

BAIL SLIP :The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated.20-05-2010 in l.A. No.2of 201O(CRLRCMP.No 1467 OF 2010) in CRLA No 1014 of2010. 134441 THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY. THE TWENry NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA cRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1014 OF 2010 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 40'l of Cr.PC against the Judgment dated 13 05.20 10 made in Crl.A.No.189 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet preferred against the Judgment dated 31-10-2008 made in C.C.No.739 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet. Between: Vemuri Suresh, S/o. Ramachander Rao, Occ: Driver of PW Bus, R/o Machilipatnam Krishna District. AND State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad ...Petitioner/Accused ...RespondenUComplainant Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri G L Narasimha Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA : EVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.10't4 o 2010 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed und: Sections 397 and40'1 of theCriminal ProcedureCode, 1973(ft short Cr.p.C) by the petitioner/accused against the judgment ctz ted 13.05.2010 in Crl.A.No 189 of 2008 on the file of the ll Adci, ional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short, 'the tr rpellate Court') confirming the conviction dated 31.10.2008 pa;;ed by the the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suryapet, in C r ; No. 73g0 of

2. By the impugned judgment dated 13.05.201 I, the sentence imposed against petitioneriaccused for the off,_. rce punishable under Section 304-A of IPC is reduced from ngorous imprisonment of two (02) years to rigorous impr sonment of six (06) months and the sentence imposeri against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable urr er Section 337 of IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment o1 ;ix (06) months to rigorous imprisonment of three (03) months. \ l 2 ETD, J Crl.R.C l0l4 2010

3. Heard Sri G.L.Narsimha Rao, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent_State.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner was 33 years at the time of the alleged accident. He further submitted that the petitioner faced trial wherein eye witnesses turned hostile and that except the evidence of PW.2/sister of the deceased, there was nothing to hold conviction in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is a poor driver and he has been going around the Courts for almost 20 years and that he has been put to lot of suffering. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and six (06) months, for the offence punishable under Sections 304_4 and 337 of the lPC, respectively, was reduced by the appellate Court to a period of six (06) months and three (03) months. He further submitted that the petitioner herein is the sole bread winner of his family. Hence, he prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence by allowing this revision case.

5. Learned Additional Public prosecutor has submitted that the.p6titioner was identified by pW.2 who is the sister of the ., ETD. J Crl.li.C 101,1 2010 deceased who died in the alleged accident. He fu ther submitted the offences under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC '/ere held to be proved and the conviction was upheld but the ser:ence imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court was 'r duced by the appellate Court by taking a lenient view. He rus prayed to dismiss this revision case.

6. Perused the record. Considering the subrnir sions made by both the parties and after reviewing the evider ce of the eye witnesses including the evidence of PW.2/sister o the deceased, it is to be noted that both the eye witnesses i.e , PW.3 and 4 turned hostiles. PW.2/the sister of the deceasec supported the case of prosecution. lt is observed that the petitioner has undergone 15 days of imprisonment during the crl lrse of trial and appeal. lt appears that the petitioner is aged aboJ 50 years. lt is noteworthy that the petitioner, being a middle ag ed person and running a family, further imprisonment agains;l the petitioner would cause hardship to his entire family as he is ;tated to be the sole bread winner of his family. The learned r ounsel for the petitioner submitted that the peititoner has be an undergoing mental agony for the past twenty years. Therefon,, in view of the \ \ t I 4 E]'D, J ('rl.R.C 1014 2010 facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of 15 days, the sentence imposed against the petrtioner by the appellate Court for the offence punishable under Sectrons 304-4 and 337 of lpC is modified to that of only fine, to meet the ends of justice.

7. Thus Criminal Revision Case is parily allowed modifying the impugned judgment dated'13.05.2010 in Crl.A.No..l 89 of 2008 on the file of ll Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet The sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused for the said offences, is modified to that of only fine. The petitioner is directed to pay fine amount of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-4 of the lpC and Rs.1.000/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the lpC. B. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. .GOWRI SHANKAR PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 To, 1 . The ll Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet [with records,if any] 3. The station House Officer, Suryapet Town Police Station, Nalgonda District 4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nalgonda 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

6. One CC to SRI c L NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] -k :<z',*<'7 7 Two CD Copies ADK,!sl d$- I I \- HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1014 of 2010 -.4 .. !i ; ) a Q. ,i- iDi[ m ti aI .] I t PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLRC g- ttl'\ U 6I i9