I BAIL SLIP:_The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 2'1.10.201 1 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3l96 of 201'l in Cd.R.C.No.2137 of 2011 [ 2s99 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2137 OF 2011 Between: Shaik Waheed, S/o Babu, AND ...PETITIONER The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at HYderabad' ...RE'P.NDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. GANESH RAO Counsel for Respondents: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER \ Criminal Revision Case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment made in Cd.A.No.6 of 2011 dated O2.O9.2O11 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, Nizamabad Dishict, preferred against the Order in C.C.No.104 of 20'10 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Armoor. I I I i I; i I I THE JIoN'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOI'AL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2137 OF 2()l 1 ORDER I Petitioner herein was tried as accused by the L:arned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, in C.C.No. 1O4 of 20lC fc r th,: offences punishable under Sections 3O4-A, 338 and 337 of II'C. tturing the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws. I to 10 aLn,l g)t marked Exs.P.l to P.16. The learned Magistrate having asser;s,:d the entire evidence found the petitioner guilty of the offencr:s punishable under sections 3O4-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and accorclingly ccnr icted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a'period of one year for the offence lrunishable under Section 3O4-A IPrl and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1 ,OOO/ - and Rs.50t)/ - fc r tht: offences punishable under Sections 338 and 337 of IPC respcctiv(: Iy. Aggrieved by the said judl;rnent dated 22.12.2O1O, the petitirrer preferred Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2O I I on the file of the Court ,>f thr' Sessions Judge at Nizamabr rd and the learned Sessions Judge, wrile concurring with the frndings lgrven by the trial Court, howeve:, partl)' allowed the appeal in respect of awarding of punishment, such .es the petilioner was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 338 tP(l; the sentence recorded for the of ience under Section 337 IPC wasi set;.side in view of Section 7l IPC; th,) sentence of rigorous imprisonnrent irnpos,:d lor the offence punishable under Section 3O4-A of IPC was reduced to that of I t 2 \ six months. Questioning the same, this revision is preferied by the petitioner / .accused under Sections 397 and 40 i of Cr.P.C. 2 The case cf the prosecution in brief is that in the morning hours of 06.12.2009 one D.La.xmi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceasedJ along *,ith P.Ws. I to 3 and others boarded the TATA Ace trolley bearing No.AP 15/W-2868 belongs to the petitioner near Armoor bus stand to go to their native places. The petitioner drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and having lost ccntrol over it, dashed to a tree by the side of road at 7.15 a.m. near Gandlapet village Pedda Vagu, which resulted causing injuries to the deceased and P.Ws.l to 3 and also to some others. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same night while undergoing treatment. On 15.12.2009 the petitioner went to the police station and surrendered himself to the police admitting the commission of offence. Hence the charge. 3 The evidence of P.Ws. I to 3 who are the injured in the accident and travelled in the crime vehicle was to the effect that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto trolley, the vehicle tumed turtle and they identifred the petitioner as driver of the crime vehicle. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the owner - cum - driver of the crime vehicle, which is not in dispute and the same is also evident from Ex.P.6 report given by P.W.8 the Motor Vehicles Inspector. There is also no cross examination on the point of the petitioner surrendering himself before P.W.1O. Therefore and as rightly observed by the Court \ I i below that in vieu of the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 1() coup,led u'ith Ex.P.6, the contention ol the petitioner that no test iden tificat.ion prarade was conducted to ider tiff the petitioner as the driver c,f the crim() vehicle at the relevant poin. of time is misconceived and meritles;s. IJ' really the petitioner was no:. the driver of the crime vehicle al the r-elevant point of time, since he is the owner of the crime vehicle, he shculd trave stated that some other person drove the vehicle at thtLt parti<:ultLr point of time, but there uas no such mention in the cross examination of the material witnesse ;. 4 As seen frcm the material available on record, :;irrce there was death of one perr,on, and the medical evidence also cc,rroborates that the death was c.ue to the injuries sustained ; n thc acc ident, the prosecution prove d the guilt of the accused for th e offr nr:e punishable under Section 3O 1-A of IPC. Insofar as the offence pr- nrshirble under Section 338 of IPI is concerned, the appellate Court obsened that in the absence of X-Ray films and radiological reports, con\ ictron cannot be given under Section 338 IPC solely basing on Exs.P.[; cnd P.9 injury certiflcates. Aparl from P.Ws.l and 2, P.W.3 and sorr: others also sustained some s:mple injuries which are proved lhrou,gh the evidence of P.W.9. Hence lhe conviction under Section 338 of IPI wa:; set aside and the said injuties were treated as simple injurjes punishable under Section 337 IPC. Having regard to the facts and :ircurnstarces of the \ 1 5 While summing up the conviction for all the three offences, the appellate Court, while following the provisions of Section 7 I IPC, set aside the sentence imposed under Section 337 o[ IPC since the petitioner rvas already convicted for a major offence pu.nishable under Section 304-A oi IPC, which u,as the result of the same accident. 6 So far as the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed by the appellate Court against the petitioncr is concerned, the judgment of the appellate Court rvas dated O2.O9.2OI I and it is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted b1r this Court on 21.1O.2O11 the petitioner came out of the jail. Therefore, it seems that the petitioner was in jail for a period ol nearly- 5O days. 7 In the instant case, the incident pertains to the year 20O9, i.e., more than 14 years ago. The petitioner/ accused has already undergone physical incarcEration for about- 5O days and mental trauma for about 14 years. Therefore, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as tJle said sentencc of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is concerned. 8 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the Court below is modified and the said sentence is reduced to that gfJhe period, u'hich the petitioner had already case, I am irr compete agreement u'ith the hnding given bv the appillate Court and that hnding needs r1o interference. Ji undergone. Exce pt the revision is dismis sed. said modification in all oth:r asipects this 9 As a sequr:I, miscellaneous petitions, if any, t,e:rding in this criminal revision <.ase shall also stand dismissed. \ //TRUE COPY// SI/. 8. SATYAVATH Dt:P JTY REGI S[ CT ON OFFICER To, 1 . The Sessior s Judge, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District (Wirh Records, if any) 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor,. 3, Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat-. ()f T(rangana. touTl 4, One CC to [r. Ganesh Rao, Advocate(OPUC) 5. Two CD Cogries MBC d HIGH COURT DAT'ED: 0410812023 il 1g Stt 1$B .,,, .i)'' 75?iiF;5 f "-)l.r :, r) L) l.:.:,;,,, 'i.-:._' ORDER CRLF C.N o.21 37 ot 2011 DIMISSING THE CRIMINAT. REVISION CASE @0d Qo -- aTrID i