APHC010000182016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. MOHAMMAD GOWHAR, S/O ISMAIL, DRIVER, R/O GANDHI NAG MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of through S.H.O. Samalkot, P.S. East Godavari District. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased toto call for the Records relating the Judgment in Crl.A.No.52 of 2014, dated 05 Additional District & Session Judge: East Godavari District: at Kakinada, the same was confirmed the Six mon one Month conviction and sentence Passed in C.C.No.245 of 2010 Dt.03 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District by enlarge the petitioner on bail the above CrI.R.C., and set Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2016 (CRLRCMP 967 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the Operation of the Judgment in Crl. 2016 on the file of the III Additional District & Session Judge: East Godavar IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY-FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 700/2016 MOHAMMAD GOWHAR, S/O ISMAIL, DRIVER, R/O GANDHI NAG MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh through S.H.O. Samalkot, P.S. East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased toto call for the Records relating the Judgment in Crl.A.No.52 of 2014, dated 05-01-2016 on the file of the III Additional District & Session Judge: East Godavari District: at Kakinada, the same was confirmed the Six months and awarded fine of Rs 5,000/ one Month conviction and sentence Passed in C.C.No.245 of 2010 Dt.03 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District by enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of and set-aside the same and pass order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case. (CRLRCMP 967 OF 2016 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 eration of the Judgment in Crl.A.No.52 of 2014, dated 05 2016 on the file of the III Additional District & Session Judge: East Godavar IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] MALLIKARJUNA RAO MOHAMMAD GOWHAR, S/O ISMAIL, DRIVER, R/O GANDHI NAG ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased toto call for the Records relating the 2016 on the file of the III Additional District & Session Judge: East Godavari District: at Kakinada, the ths and awarded fine of Rs 5,000/- in I.D.S.I. one Month conviction and sentence Passed in C.C.No.245 of 2010 Dt.03-03- 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, , pending disposal of aside the same and pass order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to No.52 of 2014, dated 05-01- 2016 on the file of the III Additional District & Session Judge: East Godavari 2 District: at Kakinada, the same was confirmed the 18 months and awarded fine of Rs 5,000/- in I.D.S.I. one Month conviction and sentence Passed in C.C.No.245 of 2010, dated 03-03-2014, on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District, by enlarging the Petitioner on Bail pending disposal of the criminal revision petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2016 (CRLRCMP 2623 OF 2016) 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 pleased to direct to post above Crl.M.P. for being mention for modify the order from two sureties for a like sum(Rs.10,000/-) each to the satisfaction of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, to only personal bond of the petitioner, the petitioner is in Sub Jail, Kakinada, East Godavari District to the petitioner was in Central Jail, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C. and to pass such other order or orders as this Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The court made the following O R D E R: 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused assailing the judgment dated 05.01.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.52 of 2014 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada (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 offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) vide judgment dated 03.03.2014 passed in C.C.No.245 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 3 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 case of the prosecution are that: (a) The accused, a resident of Mandapeta, was the driver of a lorry bearing No. AP16 TU 9988 at the time of the incident. The deceased, Jatla Veera Venkata Ramana @ Veerababu (Deceased No.1) and Settibathula Gangabhavani (Deceased No.2), were residents of Samalkota. On the morning of 01.09.2010, Deceased No.1, along with his sister-in-law, Deceased No.2, visited a hospital in Pithapuram. Bhavani was the pillion rider on the motorcycle. While returning to Samalkota, around 11:45 A.M., near Kodandaramapuram village, the accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, hitting the motorcycle. As a result, Veerababu died on the spot, while Bhavani sustained severe injuries and was shifted to GGH, Kakinada, in an ambulance. (b) Following the incident, LW.1 (Sigatapu Satyanarayana Murthy) lodged a complaint at Samalkota Police Station. Based on the report, PW.7 (K. Laxmana Reddy), Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr. No.162/2010 under Sections 304A and 338 IPC and initiated an investigation. PW.7 visited the scene, prepared the scene observation report (Ex.P2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P7), and arranged for photographs through PW.4 (Teku Srinivasu). He conducted inquests over both deceased persons in the presence of relevant witnesses and sent the bodies for postmortem. Deceased No.2 succumbed to injuries on 08.09.2010 during treatment. PW.10 (Dr. G. Ravi Bhaskar) conducted the autopsy of Veerababu and opined the cause of death as complications due to pelvic fracture (Ex.P9). PW.11 (Dr. Vijaya Ratna Raju) conducted the autopsy of Bhavani and attributed the cause of death to head injury (Ex.P10). (c) PW.8 (N. Siva Rama Krishna), MVI, inspected the lorry and confirmed no mechanical defect. The accused was arrested on 02.09.2010 by PW.9 (M. Venkateswara Rao), Inspector of Police, Peddapuram, and 4 remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 304A IPC. 4. The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, took cognizance under Sec.304A IPC against the accused. Upon the appearance of the accused, copies of the documents furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., with the substance of the accusation explained to the accused in Telugu for the offences under Section 304A of the IPC. He denied the accusation levelled against him and pleaded not guilty, claiming his innocence. 5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 and documents Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses to the accused in Telugu, on that the accused denied the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses and stated that the incident had not occurred due to his mistake, and the motorcyclist fell on the road. The accused reported that he has no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed. 6. The trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence as stated supra vide its judgment, dated 03.03.2014 in C.C.No.245 of 2010 and convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for eighteen (18) months for the offence under Section 304A of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. 7. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2014 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 5 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.52 of 2014. 8. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is pressing the revision petition only insofar as the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is concerned, but the petitioner is not challenging the conviction under Section 304A of the IPC. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that the sentence imposed may be modified. It is contended that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner of his family. Furthermore, the petitioner has no prior criminal record. 9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Does the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrant any interference? P O I N T: 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paul George V. State of NCT of Delhi1. 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)2, 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. 1 (2008) 4 SCC 185 2 MANU/SC/0149/1976 6 11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab V. Dil Bahadur3 after referring to the judgment of the State of M.P. V. Bablu4 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." 12. In Thangasamy V. State of Tamil Nadu5, 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 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 the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances." 13. 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 3 Criminal Appeal No.844/2023 SLP (Criminal) No.2984 of 2018 dated 28.03.2023 4 2014 (9) SCC 281 5 (2019) 16 SCC 235 7 proportionate sentence must be determined on a case-by-case basis, having due regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each matter. 14. 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 instances corresponds to each other or exactly tallies. But always, the court must bear in mind 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. 15. True that in the instant case, the petitioner / accused has been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public road, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of two precious human lives. 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. 16. It is established that the sentence 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 8 prescribed punishment for an offence under Section 304A of the IPC includes imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner / accused, a driver by profession, remained in remand for eleven months six days, as recorded in the nominal rolls. 18. In Hazara Singh V. Raj Kumar6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “10. … it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict.” "11. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases." 19. 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. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could disrupt the accused’s personal life and adversely affect the welfare of his family, who may be dependent on him. In light of these factors, this court finds that this case presents exceptional circumstances that warrant judicial intervention, specifically concerning the sentence of imprisonment. 20. Upon consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/accused is a first-time offender and has no prior criminal record or antecedents. He is not reported to have ever misused a concession of 6 (2013) 9 SCC 516 9 bail/suspension of sentence. Regarding the period of imprisonment served by the accused, the nominal roll submitted by the prison authorities indicates that he had already completed eleven months and six days during the investigation, inquiry, and trial. The record indicates that the petitioner was approximately 42 years old at the time of the accident, which occurred on 01.09.2010, nearly 15 years ago. As per Section 428 Cr.P.C., any period of detention undergone during investigation, inquiry, or trial shall be set off against the term of imprisonment ultimately imposed. In view of the mitigating factors and the period of incarceration already undergone, this court deems it just to modify the sentence to the period already undergone. Point No. II is answered accordingly. 21. The Criminal Revision is partly allowed. While the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304A IPC, as recorded by both the Trial Court (C.C.No.245/2010, dated 03.03.2014) and upheld by the 1st Appellate Court (Crl.A.No.52/2014, dated 05.01.2016), remains undisturbed, the sentence of simple imprisonment is reduced from eighteen months to eleven months, corresponding to the period already undergone. The imposition of a fine by the Trial court, as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, is maintained. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order and the records to the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court forthwith. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 31.07.2025 MS / SAK 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 700 of 2016 Date: 31.07.2025 SAK