High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 397 (7) Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioner on bail of Simple Imprisonment of Six Months for the offence punishable U/S 304-A of IPC., imposed by the X Special Magistrate, R.R.District at Hastinapuram in CC.No.2 of 2072, dt.03.09.2012 and confirmed by the Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar in Crl.A.No.529 of 2013, dt.10.10.2013, pending disposal of Crl.RC. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri L.Harish Counsel for the Respondent: The Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL RwISION CASE No.2297 OF 2OLg ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is liled under Secticns 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for sh<>rt 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the Judgment dated 1O.1O.2013 in CrinLina.l Appeat No.529 of 2Ol2 passed by the leamed Additional l{etropolitan Sessions Judge, Cybearabad at L.B.Nagar (hereinafte;- referred as 'the learned appellate Court') confirming the Jrrdgment of Conviction and Sentence dated O3.O9.2012 in C.C.Iro.2 of 2Ol2 passed by the learned X Special Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District (hereinafter referred as the learned trial {)ourt').

2. Heard Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for ,he revision petitioner and Sri E.Galesh learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

03. The brief facts of the case are that on O8.O7.2r1 11 at 06.30 pm, while the deceased P.Radhakrishna and his friends after coming from Petrol Bunk on their individual motorcycles and when they reached nea"r Woodland Bar and Restaurant, Mallapur, f,G?s Cylinder Lorry bearing No.AP 29 654 I came in a rash and negligent manner behind the deceased and dashed the 2 EW,J Crl.kC No.2297 of 2013 deceased motorcycle from its left corner and ran over his body, resulting which, the deceased died on the spot. Therefore, the complainant, who is the father of the deceased lodged a complaint against the accused. Based on the complaint todged by PW. 1, the SI of Police, Nacharam Police Station registered a case in Crime No.2O0 of 2Ol l for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ.

04. The learned trial Court vide Judgment dated O3.O9.2OI2 passed in C.C.No.2 of 2OL2 found petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.SOO/- for the offence under Section 304-A 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 LO.IO.2OL2, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.529 of 2OL2, confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred. 3 EW,J Crl.kC No.2297 of 201 3 i

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

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

08. Before the learned trial Court, on behalf o[ prosecution, PW. I to PW.IO were examined and Exs.Pl to P7 w,:re 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 PWs.2 and 3, who are eye witnesses to the incident have deposed that the lorn., which was over took a bus going in its front and then hit the deceased motorcycle with its corner, resulting which, the de:eased came under the rear wheels of the lorry and sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. PW.4 who is running a shop by the side of the road deposed that he witnessed the dashing of the crime I 4 EW,J Crl.R.C No.2297 of 2013 ( vehicle to the motorcycle of the deceased. pw.g_ Doctor, who conducted post Mortem Examination over the deceased dead body and got issued pME certificate. In that the Doctor opined that the injuries were caused due to the dragging of the person on the main road by any vehicle. pW. 10 who is the Investigating officer, who liled charge sheet has deposed that the accident took place in the middle of the road leading from Habsiguda to Ma.llapur Road. 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 lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, resulting which the deceased died on the spot. Based on the oral and documentarJr evidence on record, the learned tria.l Court by way of its Judgment convicted and sentenced petitioner as stated supra.

10. The learned appellate Court upon re_appreciating the material available on record confirmed the conviction ald sentence imposed against petitioner for the offence under Sections 304-4 of IpC.

11. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide Order dated 2l.lO.2Ot3 passed in CRL.R.C.M.p.No.3478 of 2013 A11 5 EW,J Crl R.t: No.2297 of 2013 suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending this criminal Revision case and enlarged petitioner on bail. Thereafter, ttre matter underwent several adjournments. L2. In the case on hand, the learned triat Court as well as the learned appellate Court concurrently held that th,: petitioner herein was guilty for the offences under Section 3c4-A of lpc, which linding, in my considered view, does n)t call for interference, in exercise of revisionar jurisdiction under Section 397 and 4Ol of the Cr.p.C., as there are no grounds; much less va-lid grounds, or irregularities, or illegalities, to interfere with the well considered Judgments of both the Courts and accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

13. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as eleven long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and reduce trre sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of inrprisonment already undergone by him. The fine amount of Rs.SOO/_ is increased to Rs.55,OOO/- (Rupees Fifry Five Thousan,l only) to be I I ) : l l I I ! 6 Crl.R C No 2297 ol20t3 ( ' EryJ paid by the petitioner within a period of three months from today to the credit of CC No.2 of 2OI2 before the learned trial Court. Upon such deposit, an amount of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the deceased family as compensation and the remaining Rs.5,OOO/- shall be remitted to the State. If petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months.

14. Except the above modification, ln all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. / /TRUECOPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 ]CK The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.I3. Nagar. The X Special Magistrate, L.B. Nagar at Ranga Reddy District. One CC to Sri L.Harish, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. [OPUC] Two CD Copies. ?r =::-=!: J rHE S14n e o I ($( o t, ..- L 10 Jtl t. x6 t CI ^ ,:/ HIGH COURT EW,I DATED:06/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.2297 of 2073 Dismissing the Criminal Revision case (n- -v{<1,,'