IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI **** CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 482 OF 2015 Between: 1. T. VENKATESULU CHETTY, CHITTOOR DIST., S/O. T. MEGHANATHAM OCC: DRIVER R/O. D.NO. 10-27 B.T.R. COLONY MANGALAM, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. S I OF POLICE ALIPIRI P S TIRUPATHI, THROUGH S.I. OF POLICE ALIPIRI POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI CHITTOOR DISTRICT REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 14.08.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No _____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 2 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 * THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.482 of 2015 % 14.08.2026 Between: 1. T. VENKATESULU CHETTY, CHITTOOR DIST., S/O. T. MEGHANATHAM OCC: DRIVER R/O. D.NO. 10-27 B.T.R. COLONY MANGALAM, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. S I OF POLICE ALIPIRI P S TIRUPATHI, THROUGH S.I. OF POLICE ALIPIRI POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI CHITTOOR DISTRICT REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the accused. ^ Counsel for Respondents : Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: i. Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Another : 2001 (9) SCC 631. 3 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 ii. State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu and Others : (2023) 6 SCC 768. iii. State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar : (2008) 9 SCC 475. iv. State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi : (2015) 5 SCC 182. v. Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648. 4 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 APHC010017842015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] FRIDAY, THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 482/2015 Between: 1. T. VENKATESULU CHETTY, CHITTOOR DIST., S/O. T. MEGHANATHAM OCC: DRIVER R/O. D.NO. 10-27 B.T.R. COLONY MANGALAM, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. S I OF POLICE ALIPIRI P S TIRUPATHI, through S.I. of Police Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi Chittoor District Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased topleased to: i) allow the Crl.R.C. by setting aside the judgment dated 23.03.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.140 of 2013 on the file fo the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi and consequently acquit the petitioner / accused for the offence under Section 337, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. ii) and to grant such IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 788 OF 2015 5 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 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 of the certified copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.114/2009 dated 17.04.2013 on the file fo the IV- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 802 OF 2015 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 by suspending the sentence imposed in Crl.A.No. 140 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, modifying and reducing the sentence imposed in CC.No. 114 of 2009 dated 17- 04-2013 on the file of the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, pending disposal of the crl.rc. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 6 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.482 OF 2015 ORDER: This criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 23.03.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2013 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, wherein, the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner/accused was dismissed and sentence of imprisonment was reduced from one year to six months for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as ‘IPC’, from six months to three months for the offence under Section 338 IPC and from four months to one month for the offence under Section 337 IPC. 2. Petitioner is accused and respondent is complainant/State before the trial Court and both the parties will be referred to as per their positions before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.01.2007 at about 08.00 A.M, PW Nos.6 to 15, 17, 18 and 21 to 23, LW-16 (K. Munemma), LW-20 (J. Bujjamma) boarded the trailer bearing No.AP-03-T-7803 so as to go to poultry farm of one Sri Krishna Reddy. The accused being the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-03-T-7802 which was attached to the said trailer, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, for which, trailer got detached from the tractor and turned turtle and as a result of which, the inmates of trailer sustained grievous injuries. They were shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati. One of the travelers namely Ms. Kollagunta Revathi died while undergoing treatment. Basing on the report given by the de-facto complainant/LW-1, a case in Crime 7 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 No.4/2007 was registered under Section 304-A and 337 IPC. At the culmination of trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC and imposed sentences as stated supra. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2013 and the same is dismissed vide Judgment dated 23.03.2015 by modifying the sentences as stated supra. 5. The grounds urged by the accused in the revision are that the judgment under revision is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and both the Courts failed to appreciate the evidence on proper lines. Further, both the Courts failed to consider the aspects that some of the material witnesses have not supported the case and prosecution had not proved the rashness or negligence of the accused and wrongly appreciated the evidence of P.W.26/Motor Vehicle Inspector. On these and other formal grounds, accused prayed to allow the revision and acquit the accused. 6. Heard Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the accused and Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 7. On hearing both sides and upon perusing the material placed on record, the point that would arises for determination is: Whether the judgment dated 23.03.2015 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati sustainable in facts and law or it suffers from any material irregularity? 8. As seen from the record, there is no dispute with regard to the factum of accident, death of the deceased Ms. Kollagunta Revathi, injuries sustained by P.W.Nos.6 to 15, 17, 18 and 21 to 23 and involvement of the tractor 8 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 and trailer bearing Nos.AP-03-T-7802 and AP-03-T-7803. Learned counsel for the accused initially would argue that the prosecution has not proved the ingredients of Section 304-A of IPC, none of the witnesses identified the accused as driver of the offending vehicle, accused is now aged about 43 years and has children and requested to set off the period of imprisonment undergone by the accused. Further, imposing substantial punishment of sentence is not mandatory and the same may be converted as fine and compensation. 9. As per the version of the prosecution, the accused being driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-03-T-7802 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and as such, the trailer got detached from the tractor, turned turtle, several persons sustained injuries and one person i.e. Ms. K. Revathi died and had the accused taken care while driving the tractor, the accident would not have occurred. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that several persons sustained injuries and one person died and that all the material witnesses identified the accused as the driver of the tractor and they also deposed that accused drove the tractor at a high speed, did not care their words and because of his negligent driving, the accident took place. 10. Admittedly, the revision Courts have power to review the legality, correctness and propriety of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court so as to prevent injustice or abuse the process of law. It is an extraordinary power used sparingly and is not a substitute for an appeal. This Court cannot re-evaluate evidence to come to a different conclusion unless there is gross error, perversity, or arbitrariness in the original decision. In the light of the above, it is just and necessary to analyse the scope of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after refer to as ‘the Code’). 9 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Another 1 while discussing the scope of Section 397 of the Code, at paragraph No.3 held as under: "3. xxx xxx xxx. The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate Courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged." 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu and Others2 at paragraph No.79 held as under: "79. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with the appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on (2001) 9 SCC 631 (2023) 6 SCC 768 record as it is undertaken by the trial Court or the appellate Court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure." 1 2001 (9) SCC 631 2 (2023) 6 SCC 768 10 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 13. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar3 at paragraph No.16 held as under: "16. xxx xxx xxx. Now it is well settled that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. A Revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular Court of appeal." 14. In the light of the above principles, it is necessary to examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. To prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 23 and out of which, P.W.Nos.6 to 18, 21 to 23 were travelling in the trailer, at the time of accident. P.W.Nos.6 to 15, 17, 18 and 21 to 23 sustained injuries and one more traveler namely Revathi succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. PW Nos.2 & 4 are eye witnesses and they simply stated that the trailer turned turtle, several persons sustained injuries and one person died. It is the admitted case of both parties that the tractor was carrying coolies, injured/deceased and others so as to drop them at the field which is situated near Krishnareddy Poultry Farm, Karakambadi side road, Tirupati. As per the version of P.W.Nos.6 and 20, accused drove the tractor in a high speed and though they cautioned him to reduce speed, he didn’t hear their words and as such, trailer detached from tractor and they all sustained injuries. P.W.Nos.7, 13 to 15 and 23 stated that accused drove the tractor speedily and as such, accident occurred and as per P.W.No.9, accused drove the tractor in a high speed. Admittedly, none of the witnesses stated that the accused drove the tractor in a rash or negligent manner, however, at the same time, P.W.Nos.6, 9 and 20 have clearly stated that themselves, other witnesses, deceased and others were boarded in the trailer which is attached to the tractor bearing No.AP-03-T-7802 so as to attend works in a field situated at Krishnareddy Poultry Farm and though 3 (2008) 9 SCC 475 11 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 P.W.Nos.6 and 20 cautioned the driver to reduce speed, he didn’t consider their words. 15. To sustain conviction of the offence under Section 304-A IPC, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove rash or negligent driving of the accused and at the same time, it is settled principle of law that basing on the place of offence, nature of the road and other surrounding circumstances, sometimes, high speed shall be considered as negligence and in this case also, though P.W.Nos.6 & 20 cautioned the accused to reduce speed, he didn’t care their words. The attitude of the accused clearly comes under the purview of negligence and even as per Section 304-A IPC, it may be either rashness or negligence but not both. As seen from Ex.P.4 scene observation report, Ex.P.9 rough sketch, accident occurred at the entrance gate of Krishnareddy Poultry Farm on Karakambari road near the fields. So, scene of offence is not situated on a plain road and while tractor was going to the fields through poultry farm which is situated at a curve of side road, trailer detached from the tractor. As per the version of witnesses also, while taking turn, trailer detached from tractor. Had the accused been taken care by reducing speed, at least at the turning point, the accident would not have happened and because of the negligent driving of the accused, one person died and P.W.Nos.6 to 15, 17, 18 and 21 to 23 sustained injuries. 16. Coming to the aspect of identification of driver of the tractor, as rightly argued by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the witnesses-cum-injured who travelled in the trailer have categorically identified the accused as driver of the tractor bearing No. AP-03-T-7802. 12 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 17. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and judgment of the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section and 304-A of IPC are perfectly sustainable and needs no interference. 18. Having said so, the second limb of argument that has been canvassed with vehemence on behalf of the revision petitioner is that as per Section 304-A of IPC either substantial sentence of imprisonment or fine may be imposed and as such, requested to convert the sentence of Six months imprisonment to fine or compensation payable to the victims. 19. What is the appropriate sentence in a matter of this nature is no longer res integra. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi4 has held as under: "13. In our considered view the decision in the said case has to be confined to the facts of that case. It cannot be said as a proposition of law that whenever an accused offers acceptable compensation for rehabilitation of a victim, regardless of the gravity of the crime under Section 304-A IPC, there can be reduction of sentence. 14. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Balwinder Singh [State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 706] wherein the High Court had allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337, 279 IPC by reducing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone, that is, 15 days. The Court referred to the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] and reproduced two paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for reproduction : (Balwinder Singh case [State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 706] , SCC pp. 186-87, para 12) "12. ... '1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the 4 (2015) 5 SCC 182 13 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.' (Dalbir Singh case [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208] , SCC pp. 84- 85 & 87, paras 1 & 13)". 20. Taking note of the galloping trend of road traffic accident resulting in death of human beings, the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is not made applicable for the accused person who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. 14 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 21. In other words, Courts are required to bestow their best attention while passing the appropriate sentence inasmuch as accused who negligently drives the motor vehicle results in human death, must understand that jail sentence in such cases is a must which would act as deterrence. Further, in the case on hand no mitigating circumstances are placed on record. Compensation for death of a human being is one aspect of the matter for which a separate forum is created wherein the dependents can approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and obtain necessary compensation. However, payment of compensation would not ipso facto result in taking away the punishment prescribed under the penal statute under Section 304-A of IPC. Necessarily, conduct of the accused in such cases must be borne in mind while the Court embarks upon ordering compensation in lieu of the imprisonment. Keeping the above principles in the background, when the material on record is appreciated, no mitigating circumstances are pleaded nor placed on record before the learned Trial Magistrate by the accused. 22. In this regard, it is to be noted that in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra5, it has been laid down that sentencing is an important task in relation to criminal justice dispensation system and held thus: "84. ... One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity 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 5 (2012) 2 SCC 648 15 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances." 85. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime-doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, the proportion between crime and punishment bears the most relevant influence in the determination of sentencing the crime-doer. The Court has to take into consideration all aspects including the social interest and [conscience] of the society for award of appropriate sentence." 23. Having considered the aforementioned principles, this Court is of the considered view that imposition of adequate sentence in respect of commission of offence meets the ends of justice. This Court also conscious about the fact that in certain circumstances, the mitigating factors have to be taken into consideration, but the said aspect depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, grant of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 is in a different sphere altogether. Grant of compensation under Section 357(3) with a direction that the same should be paid to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused has been sentenced has a different contour and the same is not to be regarded as a substitute in all circumstances for adequate sentence. On perusal of the material available on record, the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established and due to the negligent driving of the accused number of persons i.e. P.W.Nos.6 to 15, 17, 18 and 21 to 23 sustained injuries and one person died. It creates a stir in the society; sense of fear prevails all around and as such, the submission of the learned counsel for the accused in respect of conversion of imprisonment of sentence for six months either to fine or compensation to the victims cannot be taken into consideration. 16 SUN, J Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2015 24. Having given thoughtful consideration to the principles rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Guru Basavaraj@Benne Settappa (supra) coupled with the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court, without any doubt, came to conclusion that this is a fit case to impose minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months. Having regard to the factual and legal aspects of the matter, while confirming the sentence of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, the learned first appellate Court reduced the sentence from one year to six months and therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned first appellate Court are perfectly sustainable in facts and law and do not require any interference. 25. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed by confirming the judgment dated 23.03.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2013 made by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati. The accused is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 30.08.2026 for serving remaining part of sentence. Failing which, the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati is directed to take steps, to execute sentence imposed against the accused. Registry is directed to return the trial Court record forthwith. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 14.08.2026 Vns Note: L.R. Copy to be marked.