Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Tadivalasa Koteswara Rao, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 29 July, 2025
APHC010525522010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY-NINTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 527/2010
Between:
1. TADIVALASA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. RAMU, DRIVER OF AUTO
BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AP 35 U 198, R/O. PURITIPENTA
VILLAGE, GAJAPATHINAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High
Court Buildings, Hyderabad. High Court, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.PC Cr PC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to file the present Memorandum of
Criminal Revision Case to this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the calendar and
Judgment in Crl.A.no. 29/2008 dt 10.03.2010 of the file of the Sessions Judge
Vizianagaram, who confirmed the calendar and Judgment in CC.No.21 of
2007 of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram.
IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 790 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
dispense with filing the Certified copy of the judgment made in CC.No.
21/2007 dt . 01.09.2007 on the file of the JFCM, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram
District.
2
IA NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 796 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
enlarge the petitioner /accused on bail by suspending the operation of
sentence and conviction imposed against the petitioner accused in Criminal
appeal No.29 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SUBRAHMANYAM
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court made the following:
ORDER
1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the
petitioner/accused assailing the judgment dated 10.03.2010 passed in
Crl.A.No.29 of 2008 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
(for short, ‘1st Appellate Court’) whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal, by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 304A, 338 and
337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC‘) vide judgment dated
13.06.2008 passed in C.C.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to
as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution’s case are that on the night of
13.01.2007 at 10 PM, the deceased (Gandreti Satyam), along with Shaik Alim
and Pikka Simhachalam, boarded a goods auto (No.AP 35 11 198) carrying
vegetable bags for sale at Vizianagaram Market. The accused, driving the
3
auto rashly and negligently at high speed on NH43 between Billalavalasa and
Neliwada villages, lost control, causing the vehicle to overturn. As a result, all
three sustained grievous injuries. They were immediately taken to
Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, where Gandren Satvam died on
16.01.2007 during treatment. The H.C.No.871, in charge of the hospital
outpost, recorded the injured’s statement and forwarded it to Bondapalli Police
Station. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector registered the case in Crime
No.4/2007 under Section 337 of IPC. Upon receiving the death report, the
offence under Section 304A of IPC was included. An inquest was conducted
over the deceased’s body, the scene was photographed, witnesses were
examined, and their statements recorded. The medical officer performed the
postmortem examination. After receiving the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report,
wound certificates, and postmortem findings, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed
a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 304A, 338 and 337 of
IPC, and Sections 184 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. This learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajapathinagaram, took
cognizance against the accused under sections 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC
and sections 184 r/w 177 of M.V.Act.
5. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of the prosecution
documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207
Cr.Р.С.
6. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The sum and
substance of the charge sheet averments were read over and explained to the
accused in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty for the offences
punishable under Sections 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC and under Section 184
r/w 177 of the M.V. Act and claimed to be tried.
7. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to
14 were examined, and Exs. P1 to P12 were marked. After the closure of the
evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of
4
Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the
evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the same and stated
that he had no defence witnesses. The accused was examined under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. and pleaded not guilty.
8. The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as
well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offences, as
stated supra, vide its judgment, dated 13.06.2008 in C.C.No.21 of 2007 and
convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for a period of eight (8) months for the offence under Section
304A of IPC; and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section
338 of IPC and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one
month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC
and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ten days. He was also further
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 184 r/w.177
of M.V. Act and, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ten days.
9. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the
unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2008 before the 1st
Appellate Court, and the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal
and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused. Felt
aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal
Revision Case, challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in
Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2008.
10. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:
(I) Whether the conviction recorded against the accused
under Section 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC by the 1st Appellate
Court, affirming the Trial Court’s judgment, is sustainable
in law?
(II) Does the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court
warrant any interference?
5
POINT NO.I:
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the lower
courts erred in convicting the petitioner instead of acquitting him, given the
inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. The courts should have
disbelieved the testimony of PWs.1 to 3, as their cross-examinations reveal
contradictions and introduce exaggerated facts. Notably, PW.2’s claim that no
vehicles were coming from the opposite direction contradicts the testimony of
PWs.1 and 3, who confirmed that there was heavy traffic on the National
Highway at the time of the incident. It is further submitted that the courts
wrongly relied solely on the chief examination of PWs.1 to 3, neglecting the
material content of their cross-examinations, which favour the petitioner. The
accused’s version, that he acted in good faith to avoid a collision by turning
right and applying the brakes, without driving rashly or negligently, was
overlooked. The intact condition of the auto, despite turning turtle, as
confirmed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report (Ex.P.8), supports this
claim. The learned Sessions Judge failed to consider that the heavy traffic and
the lorry’s presence contributed to the accident when the petitioner applied the
brakes. Learned counsel further contends that the absence of damage to the
auto, as evidenced in the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, disproves the
prosecution’s allegation of rash and negligent driving. This alone warrants
rejecting the prosecution’s case against the petitioner.
12. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of
revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest
reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived
by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court”.
13. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam2, held that:
1
(2004) 7 SCC 659
2
(2009) 13 SCC 330
6
9. ….if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of
re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is
found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular
court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly
administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of
determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence.
10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on
pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are
exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal
practice.
8. ….The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of law
from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is
materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.”
14. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Malkeet Singh Gill v. The State of Chattisgarh3, thus:
“8. ….The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed
to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the scope of
interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal
Procedure Code (in short ‘CrPC‘) vests jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of
any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be
wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case.
It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional court
does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse
those findings.”
15. From the defence version, the stand of the accused is that he was not
driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner; at the time of the
accident, a lorry approached from the opposite direction at high speed; in an
attempt to avoid a collision, the accused applied sudden brakes to the auto at
the scene of the incident, which caused the vehicle to overturn; consequently,
the deceased, Gandreti Satyam, who was seated in the cabin of the auto, was
thrown onto the road and succumbed to his injuries. The material on record
also indicates that the fact of the deceased’s death, resulting from injuries
sustained in the accident, is not in dispute.
3
AIR 2022 SC 3283
7
16. The record indicates that PW.1 (K. Satyam), PW.2 (Shaik Alim), and
PW.3 (Pitta Simhachalam) are injured witnesses in connection with the same
accident. Their testimony establishes that they boarded an auto bearing
registration No.AP 35 U 198, which was being driven by the accused at the
time of the accident, along with their respective vegetable produce, at around
10:30 PM to travel to Vizianagaram. The accident occurred at approximately
12:30 a.m. when the vehicle overturned on NH-43 near the Billalavalasa road
junction in Nelivada village. The version of events given by PWs.1 to 3, both
as to the manner of the accident and the fact that the accused was driving the
vehicle at the relevant time, has not been disputed by the accused. Their
evidence further reveals that all injured persons were shifted in an ambulance
to the District Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram, for treatment, and that
Gandreti Satyam (the deceased) was subsequently referred to K.G. Hospital,
Visakhapatnam, for advanced medical care.
17. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 further reveals that they had requested the
accused to drive the auto slowly; however, the accused did not heed their
advice. Specifically, PW.1 stated during cross-examination that he asked the
accused nearly ten times to slow down the vehicle. Although it was suggested
to PWs.1 to 3 in cross-examination that a lorry was approaching at high speed
from the opposite direction at the time of the accident, and that the accused
applied sudden brakes to avoid a collision, causing the auto to overturn,
nothing was elicited during their cross-examination to discredit their testimony
or substantiate the defence version. Furthermore, no material has been
placed before the court to support the claim that the accident occurred due to
a lorry approaching at high speed from the opposite direction.
18. The prosecution examined PW.9, the Medical Officer who treated
PWs.1 to 3 and issued Exs.P.5 to P.7, the wound certificates. The evidence of
PWs.1 to 3 regarding the injuries they sustained, as reflected in Exs.P.5 to
P.7, has not been disputed. The medical evidence, therefore, corroborates the
oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3.
8
19. As previously noted, the defence has not disputed the prosecution’s
case that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The
prosecution examined PW.10, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, to prove Ex.P.8,
the M.V.I. report. The evidence of PW.10 establishes that the accident did not
occur due to any mechanical defects in the crime vehicle.
20. The prosecution examined PW.11, a Head Constable, to establish that
on 14.01.2007, he received the medical intimation marked as Ex.P.9 and,
based on the statement of PW.1 marked as Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime
No. 4 of 2007. A perusal of Ex.P.1 indicates the rash and negligent driving of
the accused at the time of the accident. PW.13, also a Head Constable,
testified that upon receiving the medical intimation, he rushed to the District
Headquarters Hospital, where PW.1 gave him the statement (Ex.P.1). He then
handed over both Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.9 to the Head Constable.
21. The prosecution examined PW.5, who testified that the accused
informed him about the incident that occurred at the Billalavalasa road junction
and about the injuries sustained by the inmates of the auto. The prosecution
also relied on the evidence of PW.6, a photographer, who captured
photographs of the scene of the offence and handed over both the
photographs and its negatives to the Sub-Inspector of Police. PW.7, a
mediator, was examined to prove the observation of the scene of offence. His
testimony indicates that he accompanied the police to the scene, where they
found a goods carrier auto bearing registration No.AP 35 U 198, which had
been overturned. The scene observation report was marked as Ex.P.3. The
evidence of PW.8, an inquest panchayatdar, shows that he was present
during the inquest over the deceased’s body, signed the inquest report, and
the same was marked as Ex.P.4. Additionally, the evidence of PW.12, an
Assistant Professor, indicates that he conducted the postmortem examination
of the deceased and issued Ex.P.12, the postmortem certificate.
9
22. A rash act is an overhasty act done without due deliberation and
caution. In rashness, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with
recklessness or indifference to consequences. Negligence means breach of
duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by
those considerations which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs would
do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.
Culpable negligence is acting without consciousness that illegal or
mischievous effects will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor
has not exercised the caution incumbent on him, and that if he had, he would
have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of the
civil duty of circumspection.
23. The testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 indicate that the accused was driving the
auto in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident. As a result,
one Gandreti Satyam, who was seated in the cabin of the auto, fell onto the
road and died due to the injuries sustained. PWs.1 to 3 also sustained injuries
in the said accident. Nothing was elicited during the cross-examination of
PWs.1 to 3 to discredit their evidence. There appears to be no reason for
them to falsely implicate the accused, especially given that they were
travelling in his auto. Furthermore, there is no indication that they would
deliberately shield the real culprit and falsely testify against the accused.
24. Both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court accepted the
prosecution’s case, holding that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 establishes the
essential elements of the offence under Section 304A of IPC, namely,
rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. The 1st Appellate Court
also noted that the degree of criminal liability could be assessed based on the
accused’s rash and negligent driving, which resulted in the auto overturning
during the accident. Both Courts relied on the consistent version of PWs.1 to
3, who stated that despite their repeated requests to the accused to drive the
auto slowly, he ignored their pleas and continued to drive in a rash and
negligent manner.
10
25. The evidence on record indicates that the accused failed to take any
reasonable precautions while driving the vehicle. As rightly observed by both
Courts, the accused did not adduce any evidence to explain how the accident
occurred. Nothing was brought out during the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3
to even remotely suggest that a lorry was approaching from the opposite
direction and that the auto driver attempted to avert a collision, resulting in the
accident. The 1st Appellate Court also noted that, even during the examination
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused did not offer any explanation
regarding the incident and merely denied the prosecution’s case.
26. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW.14) and the rough sketch
(Ex.P.11) prepared by the police does not indicate that a lorry was
approaching from the opposite direction at the time of the accident. As rightly
observed by both Courts, the absence of damage to the auto cannot be a
valid ground to discredit the consistent and credible version of PWs.1 to 3
regarding how the accident occurred.
27. Importantly, no material has been brought on record to suggest that the
PWs.1 to 3 bore any animosity toward the accused or had any vested interest
in falsely implicating him. There are no allegations of enmity, bias, or undue
influence which could taint their credibility or render their testimonies
unreliable. The naturalness of their testimonies, coupled with the absence of
contradiction or exaggeration, reinforces the view that their statements are
genuine and voluntary. The consistency and coherence evident across the
testimonies of the PWs.1 to 3 further enhance their probative value. Their
version is in substantial harmony with that of other documentary evidence,
and collectively form a cogent and credible chain of evidence pointing to the
accused’s involvement in the offence. This court is of the considered view that
the testimonies are both truthful and trustworthy.
28. Both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have independently
evaluated the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and have recorded concurrent findings
11
affirming their reliability. These findings are neither perverse nor based on
conjecture, and are supported by the record. In the absence of any compelling
reason to disbelieve these assessments, this court finds no justifiable ground
to take a contrary view regarding the credibility of the said witnesses, i.e.,
PWs.1 to 3. Accordingly, their testimony is accepted as credible.
29. Upon a careful examination of the evidence on record, both the Trial
Court and the 1st Appellate Court concurrently held that the accident was the
result of the accused’s rash and negligent driving. This court has also gone
through the evidence in detail and finds no reason to take a view different from
that of the Courts below.
30. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this court
finds that both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have rightly
appreciated the evidence and properly assessed the materials placed before
them. The findings were arrived at after a thorough and correct evaluation of
the case from all relevant perspectives. Consequently, there is no justification
to interfere with the concurrent findings of both courts regarding the conviction
of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337, and
338 of the IPC. Accordingly, Point No.I is answered in the negative.
POINT NO.II:
31. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner is
the sole breadwinner of his family, who are entirely dependent on his income,
and that he has no prior criminal record, including any violations of traffic
rules. It is further submitted that in similar cases involving a higher number of
deaths and injuries, this court has, on multiple occasions, reduced the
sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, a request is made for the court to take
a lenient view. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, in the alternative,
prays for a reduction of the sentence and places reliance on the judgment of
12the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paul George V. State of NCT of Delhi4. It is,
therefore, submitted that the petitioner-accused may be granted the benefit of
the sentence already undergone. He further brought to the notice of this court
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State
(Union Territory of Delhi)5, wherein the Apex Court, considering the facts of
the case, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two (2) months to one
(1) month of rigorous imprisonment.
32. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor places reliance on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab V. Dil Bahadur6 after referring
the judgment of State of M.P. V. Bablu7 held as under:
“the prime objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just,
proportionate punishment which is necessary with the gravity nature of
crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep
in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering
the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment
should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is
therefore, the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while
awarding the sentence as awarding the lesser sentence encourages any
criminal and as a result of the same, the society suffers.”
33. In Thangasamy V. State of Tamil Nadu 8, the offences alleged and
conviction ordered was for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337
and 304A of the IPC. The vehicle involved was a Government passenger Bus
and the accident had resulted in the death of four persons. After conviction,
when ultimately the accused approached the Hon’ble Apex Court, a request
was made before the Hon’ble Apex Court for reducing the sentence. In that
regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court re-emphasized its policy on sentencing in the
following words:
“84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the
prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate,
just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and4
(2008) 4 SCC 185
5
MANU/SC/0149/1976
6
Criminal Appeal No.844/2023 SLP (Criminal) No.2984 of 2018 dated 28.03.2023
7
2014 (9) SCC 281
8
(2019) 16 SCC 235
13gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no
straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The
Courts have evolved certain principles the twin objective of the sentencing
policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends
of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the
court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime,
nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”
34. It is a well-established principle of sentencing policy that the punishment
imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven offence. The
sentence should be neither nominal nor excessive. What constitutes a
proportionate sentence must be determined on a case-by-case basis, having
due regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each matter.
35. While ordering the sentence, the facts and circumstances of each of the
case before the court has to be appreciated on its own merits and the
circumstances in one criminal case cannot be taken as a binding precedent in
so far as the order on sentence in another case, unless the facts and
circumstances of each of the cases corresponds to each other or exactly
tallies. But always, the court must borne in mind of the cardinal principle that,
the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt,
and it should not be excessive or exorbitant.
36. True that in the instant case, the petitioner / accused has been found
guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304A, 338 and 337 of IPC for
driving rashly and negligently on a public road, which unfortunately resulted in
the loss of a precious human life. However, it is pertinent to note that there is
no allegation that the accused was under the influence of liquor or any other
substance impairing his ability to drive at the time of the accident. The act was
one of rash and negligent driving simpliciter, and not one involving inebriation,
a factor which, if present, would have constituted an aggravated and
despicable offence warranting a stricter and more severe sentence.
37. The record indicates that the petitioner was approximately 35 years old
at the time of the accident, which occurred on 13.01.2007 nearly 18 years ago
14
and that there are mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction in the
sentence imposed by the Trial Court, which the Sessions Court later
confirmed. It is established that the punishment for an offence under Section
304A of the IPC may consist of imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or
a fine, or both, with the extent of the sentence left to the court’s discretion.
However, in 1973, the Indian Parliament introduced a limitation on this judicial
discretion by inserting sub-section (4) into Section 354 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. This provision mandates that when a court imposes a sentence of
imprisonment for less than three months for an offence punishable with
imprisonment of one year or more, the court must record its reasons for such
a sentence. This amendment clarifies that imprisonment should be the norm,
while imposing only a fine should be the exception in such cases. When
Parliament enacted this subsection, it would have certainly noticed that the
prescribed punishment for an offence under Section 304A of the IPC includes
imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both.
38. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused, his
age, economic condition, the passage of time since the accident, and the
absence of any prior criminal antecedents, this court finds that the sentence
imposed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304A
of the IPC is on the higher side and can be considered excessive. Therefore,
this court finds it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgments only to
the limited extent of reducing the quantum of sentence, to ensure that the
punishment remains reasonable and proportionate to the proven guilt. In light
of the above, the sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, as awarded by the
Trial Court and confirmed by the 1st Appellate Court for the offence under
Section 304A of IPC, is hereby reduced to three months, which would meet
the ends of justice. The other sentences imposed by the Trial Court and
affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court shall remain undisturbed. In light of the
overall facts and circumstances, this court finds it just and proper to partly
allow the criminal revision case. Accordingly, the point No. II is answered.
15
39. As a result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. While
affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram, dated 13.06.2008 in C.C.No.21 of 2007, as
well as the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2008, dated 10.03.2010, the sentence of
imprisonment imposed against the accused for the offence under section
304A of IPC is hereby reduced from eight months to three months. The period
of imprisonment, if any, already undergone by the accused shall be set off
against the sentence now imposed, in terms of section 428 of the Cr.P.C. The
petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajapathinagaram, to serve the remaining
sentence, if any. Failing which, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take
appropriate steps against the petitioner. The remainder of the judgment
passed by the 1st Appellate Court shall remain undisturbed. The Registry is
directed to transmit a copy of this order, along with the respective records, to
both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court forthwith.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 29.07.2025
MS / SAK
16
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 527of 2010
Date: 29.07.2025
SAK