IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1096 OF 2011 Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC, against the judgment in CrI.A.No. 59 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku dated 03-05-2011 by confirming the judgment in C.C.No. 36 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku dated 15-03-2010 Between: Alasakani Raghavaiah, S/o. Venkatanarayana, Aged about 51 years, R/o. Gopinenipalem Village, Vatsavai (M), Krishna District. ...PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati ...RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent; Ms P. AKHILA NAIDU, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: / APHC010081542011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) mm [3521] V. V THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1096/2011 Between: Alasakani Raghavaiah, Krishna District ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep By Pp High Court Of A P Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case was filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), against the Judgment dated 03.05.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.59 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, which confirms the Judgment dated 15.03.2010 passed in C.C.No.36 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of. First Class, Tanuku, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’). 2 Dr.YLR, J ' Crl.R.C.No.l096of 2011 Dated: 01.05.2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision submitted that the prosecution could not prove that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner; there was a delay in lodging the F.I.R; material witnesses were not examined; 3. an error was committed by placing the burden of proof on the petitioner to prove that he had not committed the offence and urged to allow this Criminal Revision Case. 4. Per Contra Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to one year. She further submits that there are no material irregularities, misreading of evidence and flagrant miscarriage of justice, and hence, she urged to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides. Perused the record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.59 of 2010, passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions, Tanuku, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws 1 to 7, marked Exs.P1 to P7. In this case, P.W-1 supported the case of the prosecution that on 26.10.2004, r 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l096 of 2011 Dated: 01.05.2025 the petitioner/accused drove his lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 X 8077 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell on the road. The right front wheel of the lorry ran over the head of the deceased and he instantaneously died in a pool of blood. P.W-1 is the eyewitness to the occurrence of the accident and nothing concrete was elicited to spurn his evidence in his cross-examination. Death is not disputed. P.W-6, who is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, testified there was no mechanical defect in the offending vehicle. The investigation revealed through P.W-5 that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court rightly found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. 8. In fact, the learned Appellate Court while confirming the conviction. confirmed the sentence of imprisonment also. Thus, there are concurrent findings about the guilt of the petitioner. This Court as a revisional Court invoking the jurisdictions under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C’ cannot re-appreciate the evidence like a second Appellate Court. Therefore, the conviction for the offence under Section 304-A shall be maintained. 9. With regard to the quantum of sentence that would be imposed on the petitioner, the petitioner was aged about 51 years at the time of the accident and he is 65 years old. The accident occurred in the year 2005 and nearly 20 years have passed by. The petitioner is present before this Court and \ 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l096 of 2011 Dated: 01.05.2025 submitted certain medical records stating that he is suffering from blindness and underwent surgeries, and he is unable to maintain himself and living at the mercy of his relatives, he has no avocation, he is hand to mouth. The petitioner submitted that he was in jail for 23 days. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, submitted a report stating that the petitioner was in 23 days. During the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner volunteered that the petitioner may be imposed an amount of Rs.5,000/- as a fine towards 10. penance. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar'' it is held that right to speedy trial which includes hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article 11. 21 of the Constitution. 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^. The right of speedy trial of the revisionist is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a reasonable time. Therefore, the delay is also one of the grounds for modifying the impugned order. As stated supra, the occurrence took place about 20 years ago. The 12. revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 20 years and AIR 1979 SC 1360 '(1999) 7 see 604 / 5 fk Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l096 of 2011 Dated: 01.05.2025 by taking into consideration the medical condition of the petitioner, it is appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to be reduced to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist. 13. In view of the peculiar situations of the case, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ while sentencing the petitioner to which he had already undergone and sentencing the petitioner to pay a further fine of Rs.5,000/- towards. 14. The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer three (03) months rigorous imprisonment. 15. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, is directed to take further follow-up steps. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, East Godavari District.(with records) 2. The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, East Godavari District, (with records) N 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry 4. One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Three CD Copies MV vna ✓ HIGH COURT DATED: 01/05/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1096 of 2011 DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC