The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri CH Ganesh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJI NA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE I{o'864 OF 2'0 Z4 JUDtrMEITT: This criminal revision case is frled revlslon petitioner/ appellant/ accused, praying to set aside the judgment dated 04.11.2O19 in CC'No'66O of 2O17 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pargi' Re ega Reddy District, convicting him, which was conhrmed by J e Principal Sessions Judge, Vikarabad District, uide its judi3 nent dated

24.02.2024 in Cr1.A.No.6 of 2Ol9'

2. The brief facts of the case are that on AugtL: a complaint was filed by Muryam Yellaiah alleSli son, Mutyam Ramesh, was involved in a road a< Mittakodur Pon turning u'hile riding his motc accident occurred when another motorcyclist' petitioner, drove rashly and negligently, resultinl3 his daughter-in-law, and granddaughter sustaill Ramesh later died on the way to the hospital registered a case against the revision peti -i Sections 337 and 304-A IPC' After investigati: t t6,2016, rg that his :ident near rrycle. The he revision in Ramesh, ng injuries. The police >ner under r, a charge i' .?: 2 sheet was hled, and the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC' The appeal filed against the conviction was disrnissed, confrrming the judgment of conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Revision Case is filed.

3. Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, Iearned counsel for revision petitioner, Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for resPondents.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the conviction under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC by the Trial and Appellate Courts is contrary to Law, weight of evidence, and probabilities of the case. He contended that both Courts failed to appreciate material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of P,W-3, particularly her admission in cross- examination that she did not mention the vehicle numbers in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement, could not recall the date of her statement, arld acknowledged the presence of a turning at Mittakodur Pond with no other persons present at the time of accident. He further contended that tihe Courts erred in relying on her identification of the Revision Petitioner as the 3 driver of the alleged crime vehicle, despite incc rsistencies regarding the time ald purpose of travel, as he r statement varied between proceeding to pargi and visitirq Osmalia General Hospital. He asserted that the depositio i of p.W-4 was not properly appreciated, as he admitted he could not identi& the vehicle involved and his statemen was not recorded by ttre police. He submitted that the c : rre vehicle was not seized, and the Revision Petitioner had nr, :onnection with the alleged offence, the deceased having los;l control of his motorcycle independently.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner incessanth. submitted that the implication of rhe Petirioner by p.W-3, wh: is the wife of the deceased, was alleged to be motivated b.y r claim for compensation. He asserted that the Courts failed o consider that P.Ws 1 to 3 are inreresred witnesses be ng family members of the deceased, and p.W-4 was not atl , yewitness, thereby rendering their testimony unreliable. Hc di. ulged that no independent witness was examined to ascertain the actual cause of tJ e accident, and thc identity of th,r petitioner remains in dispute due to improvements in p.W-3 s lestimony 4 from her earlier statement. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow this criminal revision case

6. On the ottrer hand, the learned Assistant Pub1ic Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and contended that there is no illegality in the judgment rendered either by the trial Court, or by the appellate Court, and averred that there is legitimate evidence on record to prove that due to negligence of petitioner, the harm was caused to the victirn. Therefore, while advocating that there are no merits in this revision, he prayed this Court to dismiss the same. 7 . Having regard to the rival submissions made and on considering the material on record, it is noted that while the Trial Court and Appetlate Court have rightly appreciated the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased, the evidentiary inconsistencies and procedural lapses hightighted by the learned counsel for the Revisi'on Petitioner cannot be entirely brushed aside. The testimony of P.W-3, though injured and a natural witness, reveals material contradictions between her deposition and her 161 Cr'P'C' 5 statement, particularly regarding the identifica t accused ald t]le circumstances of travel. The seizure of ttre alleged crime vehicle, non-exa..r on of the rbsence of ination of independent witnesses, and failure to record the r; atement of P.W-4, who arrived at tJle scene post-accident, cas the thoroughness of tJle investigation. Mo -r : doubt on over, the prosecution relied solely on interested witnesses, ramely the family members of the deceased, without corrobc,r ltion from neutral sources. These factors cumulatively rv :aken the evidentiar5r foundation for sustaining the sentenr:, imposed. \ However, considering that the conviction under Se ;tions 337 and 304-A IPC pertains to a negligent act an( not one involving mens rea of a higher degree, and further account that the petitioner has already ur < substaltial period of incarceration, this Court aking into crgone a is of the considered view that the ends of justice woulcl I ,e met by reducing the sentence to tJle period already undergc ne by the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Srr tions 337 and 304-,4. IPC is upheld, but the sentence imlx sed shall 6 stand modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The revision petitioner/appellant/accused is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or The revrsion petitioner/appellant/accused, shall stand cancelled Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shafi stand closed Sd/- T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAC G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal Sessions Judge Vikaraad District 2. The Judicial Maoistrate ot t6e First CLs, p"rgi n""g, Reddy District 3. The station Houie officer, p*gi ptI"" itriorn.tir<araoao otstrict 4. The Superintendent, Ce_ntrat piison, Cn"rfrplffy"'^ u thePublrc Prosecutor' Hish c;;;;,. the state of reransana at l}o""?"tt lt

9. 9n" CC to SRt L HAR|SH, Advocate tOpUCt 7. one cc to SRt CH GANEiH, A;;;a',I'fdiicf f,. Two CD Copies ADK/?SL W HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 JUDGMENT CRLRC.No.864 of 2024 '/ ': t j I 10 .:i ,-fi I PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLRC \ \0 \" 1^