APHC010673662011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ( TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 50 OF 2011 Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of CrPC, against the Judgment in C.C.No. 288 of 2004 dated 04-01-2010 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2010 dated 05-01-2011 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. Between: Paleti Venkata Ratna Siva Kumar,S/o Sri Venkata Rama Rao, aged 30 years, IQ**^ Ward, Kovvur, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner/ Accused AND The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: I APHC010673662011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 50/2011 Between: PALETI VENKATA RATNA SIVA KUMAR, KOWUR, W.G.DISTRICT, S/0. SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO 19TH WARD, KOWUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF A P REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A P HYD, Rept. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the concurrent conviction for the offences punishable under 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.SOof 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 .A Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’). 2. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, the learned Appellate Court, confirmed the conviction of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvuru the learned Trial Court, which passed the judgment on 04.01.2010 in C.C.No.288 of 2004 finding the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of ‘the IPC’. The learned Appellate Court while allowing the Appeal in part set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 338 of ‘the IPC’, but, confirmed the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-A and 337 of ‘the IPC’. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.2003 at about 5;00 P.M., while K. Satyanarayana (deceased) was proceeding on a Baja] Chetek scooter bearing No. AP 37 K 9962, accompanied by P.W.2 as pillion rider, the revision petitioner, being the driver of an APSRTC hired bus bearing No. AP 37 U 9966, had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, and dashed the scooter going ahead. As a result, K. Satyanarayana died on the spot and P.W.2 sustained grievous injuries. P.W.3, who was proceeding ahead of the said scooter, also suffered simple injuries as the offending bus hit him also in the course of the accident. 3. 3 Dr. YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.50 of 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 4. P.W.1 gave a report vide Ex.P-1, based on which a case in Crime No.173 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of ‘the IPC’ was registered at Devarapalli Police Station by P.W.10, vide Ex.P-11-FIR, and investigation was taken up. P.W.10 had reached posthaste the scene of accident, observed and examined it, prepared a sketch vide Ex.P-2, got the scene of accident photographed through P.W.5 vide Exs.P-4 to P-6, and a scene observation report was prepared and signed by P.W.1 vide Ex.P-2. 5. The cadaver of the deceased was forwarded for post-mortem to P.W.7, who conducted the autopsy and issued Ex.P-8 post-mortemreport. P.W.6, Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P-7 report, opining that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect. P.W.7, in the post-mortem certificate, opined that the deceased died due to “cardio-respiratory failure caused by internal hemorrhage and injuries to his liver and left kidney” as a result of the accident, vide Ex.P-8. P.W.8, the doctor who treated P.W.2 and P.W.3, issued wound certificates opining that P.W.2 sustained one grievous and two simple injuries, and P.W.3 sustained one simple injury, vide Exs.P-9 and P-10. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 laid the charge sheet. Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, argued that the prosecution failed to 6. 4 Dr. YLRJ Crt.R.C.No.SOof 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 prove the ingredients of Sections 304-A and 337 of ‘the IPC’. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled for acquittal; the learned Courts below, based on surmises and conjectures, passed the judgments; there was no evidence to show that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent way; the evidence of prosecution witnesses had not inspired any confidence; the petitioner was found guilty though the alleged accident had taken place on the National Highway; the scene observation report, sketch, and other circumstances would clinchingly establish that the accident occurred because of the negligent driving of the deceased; the accident occurred just before reaching the U-turn and the deceased tried to take the U-turn in a highly negligent manner. Hence, it cannot be held that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and urged to set aside the impugned judgment. 7. Alternatively, it is submitted that the accident occurred nearly 22 years ago, the petitioner is aged about 52 years now; he has two children who are due for their marriage, and his wife has been suffering from severe spinal problems; the petitioner was a contract driver of hired bus of APSRTC; the petitioner was in incarceration for a period of more than 15 days; the petitioner is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- either towards fine or compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and also to the person who suffered grievous injury, as a measure of penance, and 5 Dr. YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.50 of 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 urged to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case by sentencing the petitioner to the imprisonment to which he had already undergone, while paying Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the victims of the road accident. 8. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that because of the rash or negligent driving of the petitioner, who was driving the RTC bus K. Satyanarayana and injuries to P.Ws.2 and 3. The learned Trial Court caused the death of and also the learned Appellate Court, having appreciated the evidence on correct perspective, found the petitioner guilty for the offence charged. The learned Appellate Court, on meticulous further re-appreciation of the evidence, found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of ‘the IPC’. The concurrent conviction cannot be interfered while invoking the powers under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C. as it cannot be feasible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence at this revisional stage, and urged to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case while conceding that the accident occurred nearly 22 years 1 1 ago, and the voluntary statement of the petitioner may be taken into consideration for the ends of justice. 9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.50 of 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 10. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.U of 2010, dated 05.01.2011, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, are correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, orjudgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 11. The prosecution, before the learned Trial Court, examined P.Ws.1 to 10. and got marked Exs.P-1 to 12 as narrated supra. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the eye witnesses, was believed by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court and came to conclusion that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent way. This concurrent observation cannot be disturbed while invoking the powers under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the IPC’. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased himself drove the vehicle in a negligent manner while negotiating a U-turn cannot be appreciated at this juncture, otherwise, the petitioner being the driver of APSRTC ought to have been cautious while driving the vehicle. 12. It has to be pointed out that the accident occurred when the deceased was driving the Baja] Chetek Scooter and the offending vehicle RTC bus was going behind to the scooter. When a vehicle was proceeding ahead, the petitioner, being a driver of the RTC bus, ought to have displayed more caution; he was not supposed to drive the vehicle at high speed without blowing horn. Anyhow, learned Courts below observed that 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.50 of 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent way; such finding cannot be disturbed at this juncture. Hence, the conviction under Section 304-A and 337 of ‘the IPC’ shall be maintained. Insofar as the sentence of imprisonment of six (06) months imposed 13. for the offence under Section 304-A of ‘the IPC’ and fine of Rs.500/- imposed for the offence punishable under Section 337 of ‘the IPC’ are concerned, it has to be pointed out that the accident occurred about 22 years ago; right to a speedy trial, including the speedy disposal of appeals and revision cases as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar\ This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar^. In Ismail v. Police Sub Inspector, Hospet^, in regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-A of 'the I.P.C.,' the Hon'ble Apex Court having noted the age of the appellant was 74 years and the medical certificate established that the appellant's movement was fairly restricted, the sentence to undergo 15 days imprisonment already suffered by Ismail 14. was held to be the proper sentence. 1 Air 1979 SC 1360 2 2000(1) BUR 37 5 2013 (1) RCR (Criminal) 826 ' .v-> 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.50 of 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 In this regard it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sanjiv Bhalla wherein at 15. paragraph No.22, it is observed as under: "22. It does appear that depending upon the facts of each case, causing death by what appears (but is not) to be a rash or negligent act may amount to an offence punishable under Part II of Section 304 IPC, not warranting the release of the convict under probation. There may also be situations where an offence is punishable under Section 304-A IPC in an accident "where' mens rea remains absent" and refusal to release a convict on probation in such a case may be too harsh an approach to take. An absolute principle of law cannot be laid down that in no case falling under Section 304-A IPC should a convict be released on probation. This is certainly not to say that in all cases falling under Section 304-A IPC, the convict must be released on probation-it is only that the principles laid down in Sections 360 and 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Probation of Offenders Act should not be disregarded but should be followed and an appropriate decision, depending on the facts of the case, be taken in each case." In State of A.P v. Rajagopal Rao®, where a bus driver was 16. convicted under S. 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in connection with an accident which resulted in the death of one person, it is held that the High Court erred in allowing respondent bus driver's revision petition and upsetting concurrent findings of fact of lower courts without considering evidence on record and without indicating how lower courts were wrong in reaching their conclusions and without giving any reasons as to why the revision was being allowed. The petitioner is aged about 52 years; he has two children. It is submitted that the petitioner has got a wife, who has been suffering from severe ill health to her spinal cord. It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that there are no previous or subsequent 17. ‘*(2015) 13 see 444 ^2000) 10 see 338 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.50 of 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 similar adverse antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner was in incarceration for a period of more than 15 days. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as a measure of penance. Such voluntary statement is recorded and approved. Out of the Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.85,000/- is granted to the legal heirs of the deceased, and the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- is granted to P.W.2, who suffered grievous injuries as per the version of the doctor, which would meet the ends of justice. If P.W.2 is not alive, that amount shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of P.W.2. 19. In view of the above obtaining peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, confirming the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of 'the IPC, sentencing the petitioner to the period of imprisonment which he had already undergone, while imposing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as fine on the petitioner, to be payable before the learned Trial Court within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer six (06) months of imprisonment as imposed by the learned Trial Court. 20. Out of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.85,000/- shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased by the 10 Dr. YLR, J Crf.R.C.No.SOof 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 learned Trial Court as early as possible, and the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall be payable either to P.W.2, if he is alive, or to his legal heirs. No order as to costs. 21. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kbvvuru is directed to take up required steps pursuant to the order of this Court and submit a report to the Registrar Judicial. As a sequel. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SDI- M. SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Registrar Judicial, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 2. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, West Godavari District (with records if any ) 3. The Principal Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District (with records if any) 4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Rajahmundry 5. The Station House Officer, Devarapalli Police station, west Godavari District 6. One CC to Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CC’s to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 9. Three CD Copies MV HIGH COURT DATED: 01/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 50 OF 2011 ^ I I SEP 2025 j^] disposing of the criminal revision CASE