Order High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1431 OF 2OI.I ORDER Thislrir-ri-ialRevisionCaseisfiledunderSer:tiotts397and 401 of the C:c'r1: of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for r;hor t 'Cr'P C ') aggrieved 1rv ,.1. .J,rd*ment dated O4.O7-2074 ir C:-iminal Appeal No.B3g of 2 tr L3 passed by the learned Metropolitarr Sessions Judge at H1,1,:rabad (hereinafter referred as 'tht: learneI appellate Court') conlinrL'ng the Judgment of Conviction atrrl Sentence dated 17.C9 2til I 3 in C.C.No.129 of 2Ol2 passed bi' th': learned II Special M agLr; ,r'ate, Hyderabad (hereinafter ref:rre d as the learned trial () r,rrrt'). 02 . Hearcl ll r i Raj a Vishwanathan, learned am ictLs curiae for the revision p,r: -itioner and Sri E'Ganesh, learned Assis'tant Public Prosecutot f or -,:spondent No.1-State.

03. The Drir:f lhcts of the case are that on thr: in'-ervr:ning night of 819.09 20.'1, t1-re two deceased and the corlplainant were proceedinll l.c l/ aitrivanam on Discover Motorbike Deceased No' 1 was drivinrg the motorcycle and deceased t'lo'2 and the complainan: 1\'ere going as pillion riders' While they were proceedinll, tt-Lt: driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-O1-A 2749 carre t' l I l l l 2 in a rash and negligent manner from rear side and dashed against their motorcycle, as a result of which, two deceased died on the spot, while the complainant sustained injuries on his right eye, right shoulder ald waist. Based on the complaint todged by PW. 1, the Police, SR Nagar police Station registered a case in Crime No.986 of 2O1O for the offences under Sections 304_4 ald 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 1pC).

04. The learned trial Court, vide Judgment dated 7Z.Og.2Ol3 passed in C.C.No. 129 of 2Ol2 found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A of the Ipc and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year ald also to pay a fine of Rs.1O,O00/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred an appeal.

05. The learned appellate Court vide Judgment dated O4.O7.2O14 dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.839 of 2013, confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial court. Assailing the same, the present criminal Revision Case is preferred.

06. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate *:51, 3 the evidence ai'irilable on record in proper perspecti!/e a r-rd passed their respe:tir r: ,Iltdgments. Therefore, he seeks to se1 aside the impugned ju 1-ero ent. OT . Learr e,l , \ ssistalt Public Prosecutor submittecl that the learned appr:llat: Court rightly passed the impugtred Judgment and the ir tcrl'erence of this court is unwarranted. Therefore, learned A,jrtiti,r na1 Public Prosectttor seeks to dis,,miss this Criminal Rei'isi ln Case.

08. Before the learned trial Court, on beha.lf of p r'osecution, PWs.1 to I'V,/, I I u'ere examined and Exs'P1 to P7 u'ere marked' No oral or cl :cumentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

09.Thelearr.t:dtrialCourtuponcarefulconsiclerationofthe material av:r.i able on record found that PWs' 1, 4 eLnd 8, who are the direct rvitnesses to the incident had categoricz[1r' stated that the driver cf l,rrry bearing No.KA-09-A-2749 ':ame fiom behind and hit tt.e rl3torcycle, resulting in which, the clece ased Nos' 1 and 2 dit:d o:-t the spot and PW-l sustained inju ies' PW'6- Doctor, rvh,r < onducted post mortem examination on the two deceased ,1e'p,rrsed that D1 died due to crush injury and D2 died due to multip[t: injuries. The evidence of prosecuti'ln r','itnesses is 4 consistent and corroborating with each other, thereby, the prosecution established its case against accused that he drove the crime lorry at high speed arld in a rash and negligent manner ald dashed the deceased, which resulted in the death of two deceased. Based on the oral and docu.meirtar5r evidence on record, the learned trial Court by way of its Judgment convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated supra.

10. The learned appellate Court upon re-appreciating the material available on record confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 304-4 of IPC.

11. A perusal of the record shows that this Court rride Order dated 10.O7.2014 passed in CRL.R.C.lyl.p.No.2328 of 2Ot4 suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending this Criminal Revision Case and enlarged the petitioner on bail. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.

12. In the case on hald, the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court concurrently held that the petitioner herein was guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of IpC, which finding, in my. considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section l l t: I I l ; i I I I I i 5 397 and.40 1 c l the Cr.P'C', as there are no grc'unrls rrruch less valid grouncts, or irregularities, or illegalities' to inte:-ferr: r'r'ith the well considerecl ,l rdgments of both the Courts'

13. Havinli :<'qard to the submissions made by both tt e learned counsel, ul,on r:onsidering the fact that the petiticner suffered mental agotrl :n,1 hardship during the course of litigat on before the trial Court :.s well as the appellate Court arlrl as' ten long years have ,:1.rc's;t:d from the date of filing this Revisi'ln' ''his Court is inclinecl r c t ake a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed agaitrst the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already un,lerlllre by him. The fine amount of F:s' 1{)'00O/ - is increased tc F'r; li5,0o0/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand rrnly) to be paid by th,l l:tir.ioner within a period of three monlhs .'iom today to the cred t ol. rl.c. No.129 of 2Ol2 before the learned 1rial court. If petitioner lzrils to comply with the aforesaid dire':tion' he shall suffer simlrlt' inrprisonment for a period of six rnonths On such deposit, the tt 11a1 heirs of the deceased Nos' 1 and 2 arr' permitted to withdrarv arr rtmount of Rs.25,0OO /- each, by filieg zrppropriate applicatior bt:lr,re the learned trial Court ald rhe remaining Rs.5,OOO/ slrr[' be remitted to the State' t \ I i l I I 6

14. Except the above modilication, rest ail the aspects of the Judgment of the trial Court are upheld. Accordingly, the 0 Crimina-l Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. /ffRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR I l SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 M 6 7 PM/gh The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The ll Special Magistrate Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, S.R. Nagar poljce Station, Hyderabad. The Superintendent, Central prison, Chanchalquda, Hvderabad. Two ccs to Pubric prosecutor, High court for the s"tate of ierangana at Hyderabad. (our) One CC to SRl. RAJA VTSHWANATHAN Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies. l I I i l I HIGH COURT DATED:27101120"25 l ORDER CRLRC.No.1431 c'f 1lD1 4 e c rJ :::::: : -\ Sl4 .- :5 ' (), ' 1i (: 2 E Jl.N ?02l t So^ ri*, L ..i - i' DISPOSING OF THI: cRIMINAL REVISION CASE I l: \ tD 1$ \.r