APHC010549202009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2108/2009 Between: 1. CHAMARTHI RAMANAIAH, S/O. PEDA VEERAIAH, R/O. CHENNA REDDY COLONY, MRUTHYUNJAYAPURAM VILLAGE,, NUJENDLA MANDAL ,GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case being filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed in Crl.A.No. 217 of 2009 by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in confirming the Judgment dt.30.05.2009 made in CC.No. 23 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2965 OF 2009 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 herein on bail after suspending the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Judgment dt.10.12.2009 passed in Crl.A No. 217 of 2009 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in confirming the Judgment dated 30.05.2009 made in CC.No. 23 of 2008 on the file of the 2 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.2108 of 2009 Dated 07.04.2026 Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POSANI AKASH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.2108 of 2009 Dated 07.04.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2108/2009 The Court made the following ORDER: The Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Courts below against present petitioner where under petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (For brevity ‘the I.P.C’). Initially learned Trial Court has imposed simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The said order of conviction was modified to sentence of imprisonment to three months, while other part of the sentence was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case. Submissions of Petitioner 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution is based upon one witness i.e., PW1, who said to be the eye witness of the incident. Conviction of the petitioner on the basis of solitary witness is not legal. He further submits that the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case. He submits that there was single road and the road was under repair. The petitioner being driver could not drive the vehicle in rash and negligent manner in such a road. Moreover, evidences are not sufficient to record conviction of present petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is suffering from several 4 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.2108 of 2009 Dated 07.04.2026 ailments. He is a diabetics patient having suffering varicose veins on both his legs also impairing vision. At this juncture, the petitioner is not in a position to carry out the order of imprisonment. Submission of State 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objection and submits that prosecution has sufficiently proved the charge against petitioner. During course of trial, prosecution has placed seven witnesses, amongst them, PW1 is a eye witness, PW2 is Doctor, PW6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector and PW7 is Investigating Officer. 4. From version of PWs guilt of petitioner has sufficiently proved. The learned Trial Court has justifiably imposed sentence upon petitioner. He further submits that learned Appellate Court considered present age of the accused, thus, the order of imprisonment was modified. Now there is no scope to entertain the petitioner again. Observations of Court 5. Heard the learned counsels. Perused the impugned order of conviction passed by the learned Court below. The petitioner being driver, on 09.12.2007, at about 11am was driving a mini truck. It has been alleged that the petitioner drove the truck in rash and negligent manner from Vinukonda to Chintalacheruvu side and lost control and hit a cattle as well as the deceased. PW1 was present there at the time, he was returning to his home, he stated 5 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.2108 of 2009 Dated 07.04.2026 that he himself and the petitioner came out to the injured and admitted him to the hospital. PW1 is the eye witness, PW5 is the Doctor, who made autopsy and PW6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who stated that the accident occurred otherwise due to the mechanical defects of the vehicle. 6. The learned Trial Court is of the view that the evidences are corroborative and explaining the entire facts thereby proved prosecution case, hence conviction order was passed against petitioner. The said order of conviction was again scanned by learned Appellate Court, who after scanning all the evidences approved that the conviction is maintainable. 7. After perusing the Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in my view, there is no scope to interfere with the finding of the learned Courts below. Order of conviction against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (For brevity ‘the I.P.C’) is quite justifiable and on the basis of evidences of PWs. Evidence of one eye witness, if trustworthy, is sufficient to record conviction. 8. The evidence of PW1 justifiably proves that he was present at the time of incident, whose evidence could not be discredited during the cross examination. Moreover, the observation of the learned Appellate Court is justifiable recording the fact that there is no evidence to hold that the she buffalo was hit by the petitioner and then the she buffalo placed over the 6 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.2108 of 2009 Dated 07.04.2026 accused or dashed the injured. Considering the same, I find no illegality or impropriety. Thus the conviction and sentence is maintainable. 9. However, a memo is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show the medical condition that present petitioner is suffering with different ailments. The medical certificates of different Doctors show that the petitioner is a patient of diabetics and is under medication for long period in such critical condition. While on his both legs he is suffering from varicose veins. He is also suffering from impaired vision. 10. At this situation, this Court is of the opinion that the instant Criminal Revision Case is pending since 2008. The petitioner was arraigned as accused. Subsequently, he was made as victim in this case. He might have diligently attended criminal litigation since long period. However, medical condition of the petitioner is such a nature, he cannot serve out the sentence of imprisonment in any manner. It further appears that the petitioner has already undergone incarcerated 10 days during the course of trial. Hence, Order of three months imposed by the learned Appellate Court is hereby reduced to a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner is directed to pay the fine amount to the learned Trial Court within four (04) weeks from the date of passing of this order. 7 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.2108 of 2009 Dated 07.04.2026 11. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 07.04.2026 PBS 8 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.2108 of 2009 Dated 07.04.2026 134 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2108 of 2009 Date: 07.04.2026 PBS