The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri palle Srihari Nath Counsel for the Respondent: Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER r:"' i;-:'' ": 6 THE HOITOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ItIo.lOAO OF 2o24 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner- accused aggrieved by the Judgment dated 25.10.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2022 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy (hereinafter referred as 'the learned appellate Court') conlirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 22.03.2022 in C.C.No.1327 of 2016 passed by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate --cum- II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy (hereinafter referred as 'the learned trial CourtJ.

02. Heard Sri Palle Srihari Nath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

03. The brief facts of the case are that on 05. 10.20 l6 at about O7.OO hours PW. I lodged a complaint stating that on 04.1O.2016 at about 03.00 hours, his younger brother by name Urella Kumar and his friends were proceeding towards Shiridi Tour in his brother's car bearing No.AP O9 BX 7117 . On the vvay at about O4.OO hours, when they reached Malakapur village limits near 2 Malkapur X roads, meanwhile one lorry bearing No.GJ 12 Y 7654 came in opposite dkection i.e., from Zaheerabad to Hyderabad driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the said car, due to which the younger brother of PW. 1 and frve persons sustained serious bleeding injuri,es and three persons died on the spot. Basing on the report lodged by PW.1, the Assistant Sub Inspector, Kondapur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.l85 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC.

04. The learned trial Court vide Judgment dated 22.03.2022 passed in C.C.No. 1327 of 2016 found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of thiee months and to pay a f-rne of Rs. 1,000/-, for the offence under Section 304-4 of lPC, in default, he shatl suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2O days. Further, for the offence under Section 338 of tPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fme of Rs.1,0OO/-, in default he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 20 days, directing both sentences to run concurrently. The remand period shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred an appeal. 3

05. The learned appellate Court vide Judgment dated

25.LO.2O24 dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2022, conhrming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Rerrision Case is preferred.

06. karned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective Jirdgments. Therefore, he seeks to set-aside the impugned judgment.

07. lrarned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned appellate Court rightly passed the impugned Judgment and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case

08. Before the learned trial Court, on behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.2O were examined and Exs.Pl to pl3 rvere marked. No oral or documentar5r evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

09. The learned trial Court upon careful consideration of the material available on record found that PW.8, who is the eye witness, deposed that himself and LW. 12-Akram were returning E, .:, 4 from Hyderabad in i-2O car, when they reached to Shiva Shakthi auto rnobile Shed, ttrey witnessed the accidence, wherein one lorry hit fhe Verna car. Three persons died on the spot and two others received injuries and the accidence occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. He called the ambulance and shilted the injured to the hospital. PW.g who is another eye witness deposed in the same lines of PW.8. P\If. 10 deposed'that himself and his brother and others were togetJrer started in Verna car bearing No.AP 9 B){7ll7 to go to Shirdi, when they reached at Malkapur Chowrastha at about 03.30 or O4.OO hours, one lorry bearing No.GJ 12 Y 7654 came in opposite directing and hit the car, due to which his brother, Vurella Kumar and Chandrashekar died. One venkatachary received injuries. Thereafter, they were shifted to hospital. PW.l 1 is the injured, who deposed that on 05. 10.2O16 at O4.OO hours, himself and his brother PW. 10 and others totaling five members started in Verna car to go to Shirdi, when they reached at Malkapur Chowrastha at about 03.30 or 04.0O hours, one lorry came in opposite direction and hit the car, due to which three persons died and one person received injuries. They were shifted to hospital. Based on the oral and documentar5r evidence on,record, I I 5 the leamed trial Court convicted and sentenced petitioner AS stated suPra.

10. The learned appellate Court upon re-appreciating the material available on record confrrmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offences under Section 304-A and 338 of IPC. 1 1. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide Order dated 07. ll.2o24 passed in I.A No'02 of 2024 suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending this Criminal Revision Case and enlarged the petitioner on bail' Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.

12. [n the case on hand, the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court concurrently held that the petitioner- accused herein was found guilty for the offences under Section 3O4-A and 338 of IPC, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., as there are no grounds much less valid grounds, or irregularitie s, or illegalities, to interfere with the well considered Judgments of both the Courts and accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. l r1 i I i 6 a

13. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any' shall stand closed. SD/. K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUW REGISTRAR J To, //TRUE COPY// any) sEcHr oFFrcER '1. The ll Additional District and sessions Judge, Sangareddy (with records, if 2. The Additional Judicial First class Magistrate speciar Mobile court cum ll 3. The Superintendent, Distrk;t Jail, Sangareddy District at Kandi 4. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High cou( for the state of relangana at 5. One CC to Sri Palle Srihari Nath, Advocate {OpUCl 6. Two CD Copies Additional Junior civil Judge, Sangareddy Hyderabad. [OUT] kam/PS HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 t I I ORDER oR 1HE Sfa; ( o (J 05 tlj6 m a CRLRC.No.1080 of 2024 a;,. , l I DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE oLt