APHC010398732008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1609/2008 Between: Yerumaka Nagaraju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 1 seeking to challenge the concurrent Judgment, dated 30.10.2008 passed in Crl.A.P.No.25 of 2008 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari District at Rajahmundry2, by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.296 of 2004 dated 1 the Cr.P.C 2 the Appellate Court 2 02.01.2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry3. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 and sentenced him to undergo one year of imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Additionally, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 337 of ‘the IPC’. 4. Mr.Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the grounds of revision, arguing that the petitioner had not committed any offence and was wrongly convicted by the courts below. 5. In fact, appreciation of evidence cannot be re-evaluated while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. The learned courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the convictions under Sections 304-A and 337 of ‘the IPC.,’ should be upheld. With regard to the sentence of one year imprisonment, the petitioner has not been previously convicted or sentenced for a similar offence. He was in judicial custody for approximately 15 days. The alleged offence occurred in 2004, and now merely 21 years have passed. 3 the Trial Court 4 the I.P.C 3 6. 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 Bihar5. 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 Bihar6. The petitioner himself volunteered to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as fine towards penance, the said voluntary statement is recorded and approved. 7. The petitioner is approximately 61 years old. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted certain medical records, stating that the petitioner has undergone heart surgeries. The petitioner has suffered partial blindness in one eye, and the other eye has also been operated on. In this case, one person succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident, and two others suffered simple injuries. The petitioner has paid the fine imposed by the learned trial court at the time of preferring the appeal. 8. Considering the petitioner’s present age, the time taken for the disposal of this criminal revision case, and the petitioner’s present health condition, the sentence of one year imprisonment would not be proportionate to the petitioner’s current situation. If an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is ordered to be paid as a fine and the said fine amount is 5 Air 1979 SC 1360 6 2000 (1) BLJR 37 4 directed to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased as compensation under Section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ the interest of justice would be served. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal revision case is disposed of by confirming the convictions under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC. The petitioner is sentenced to suffer the imprisonment already undergone and the petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- within four (4) weeks from this day before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. The fine amount shall be paid equally to the legal representatives of the deceased as compensation under Section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. In case of default, the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, is directed to take appropriate steps. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Judgment. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 14.10.2025 S D P 5 143 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1609 of 2008 Date:14.10.2025 S D P