1 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1817 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 APHC010122942009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1817 OF 2009 Between: 1. SAMMANGI SATHI BABU, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL [M], E.G.DIST., S/O. KANAKAYYA R/O. C BLOCK, SATELLITE CITY, NAMAVARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL MANDAL, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYDERABAD, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1817 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1817 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. Present Criminal Revision Case (for short Crl.R.C) has been preferred against the Judgment dated 21.10.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal (Crl.A) No.67 of 2009 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamundry, wherein the learned Appellate Court has partly confirmed the Judgment in Calendar Case (for short C.C.) No.844 of 2008 dated 19.03.2009 on the file of the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajamahmundry. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case:- Petitioner was arrayed as an accused before the Trial Court for an offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. On 18.11.2004 at about 5.30 P.M, while the deceased – Surampudi Venkata Subba Rao was proceeding to his village on his cycle from his Eswari Nursery, when he reached in front of Anurama Nursery of Burrilanka village, at that time, the accused being driver of Ambassador Car bearing Regn. No. AP37 U 5897 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, while proceeding towards Ravulapalem, dashed against the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained severe head injury and succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1817 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 Matter was reported to the police by L.W.1 whereby Crime No.172 of 2004 was registered in Kadiyam Police Station, after completion of investigation, the police have submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven (11) witness as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and several documents also marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. 4. After hearing both side counsel and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court found the petitioner to be guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, thereby recorded sentence to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month. 5. Order of conviction and sentence was under challenge before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, is of the view that the petitioner was dragged in the Criminal Proceedings for a long period. Thus, the substantive sentence was reduced to six (06) months from one (01) year and fine amount was directed to be kept intact. Hence, the petitioner/ appellant/ accused had preferred the present Criminal Revision. 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1817 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court suffers illegality. The identity of the petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle was not properly proved before the learned trial court. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to bring home the materials to show that the petitioner drove the vehicle at the time of accident, in a rash and negligent manner. 7. Sri P.Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State has submitted that the learned trial court has recorded its finding after carefully perusing the evidence of prosecution witnesses. P.W.2 and P.W.5 have identified the petitioner to be the driver of the offending vehicle. Moreover, there are eyewitnesses who stated that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. 8. Heard the learned counsel for both parties, perused the observation of the learned Trial court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 9. On analyzing the evidences before the learned trial court, it appears that during examination in chief, P.W.2 has stated the name of the petitioner to be the driver. Though he failed to identify the petitioner on the Dock, but P.W.5 is another eyewitness who identified the petitioner before the trial court as the driver of the offending vehicle. This issue was vividly argued before the learned trial court and the appellate court. In paragraph No.13 of the Judgment of Appellate Court it was observed that the defence side though categorically 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1817 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 argued but, there is no specific point to disbelieve evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 to the effect that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Considering the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 the identity of the petitioner to be the driver of offending vehicle has been sufficiently proved. 10. I have perused the entire paragraph No.13 of the judgment of the Appellate Court as well as the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5. It appears that P.W.2 and P.W.5 have been cross examined at length by the defence side, but no material elicited to support the defence case. Moreover, the credibility of P.W.2 and P.W.5 being the eyewitnesses was not shaken. It further appears that the appellate court has observed that the petitioner being the driver of the offending vehicle has voluntarily surrendered before the police. Thus, there was no doubt in the mind of the appellate court that the petitioner drove the vehicle at the time of accident. On perusing the observation of the learned appellate court as well as the trial court, I find that they have correctly observed that the petitioner was identified as driver of the offending vehicle. There is no illegality or impropriety in such finding. 11. In deciding whether the prosecution has sufficiently proved the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, it appears that the eyewitnesses have vividly examined and cross examined, they have specifically stated that the petitioner being the driver of the offending vehicle – Ambassador car, has drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, it has been specifically 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1817 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 noted in the prosecution case that one side road was under construction. Accordingly, all the vehicles of both sides were ply in the left side of the road. In such a busy road, the petitioner being driver of the offending vehicle, has dashed from behind the deceased cycle, thereby the deceased sustained head injuries and succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Said fact itself prove the rash, negligent and reckless driving of the petitioner at the time of accident. Accordingly, I find no merit to interfere with the observation of the learned appellate court. 12. It appears that the alleged incident was happened in the year 2004. Already more than 20 years has been elapsed. The petitioner being the accused has suffered huge agony both mentally and financially in proceeding before the Courts. Long pending litigation is a curse upon the country for which the accused suffered long pending criminal litigation. 13. At this juncture, petitioner though found to be guilty for an offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Court, I think it is necessary to further modify the order of substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the imprisonment imposed on the petitioner be modified to two (02) months instead of six (06) months. The period of detention already undergone by the petitioner is hereby given set-off under the provisions of section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding section 468 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 7 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1817 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 15. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby dismissed and disposed of. Order of suspension of imprisonment of petitioner, if any, granted by this court shall stand cancelled. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial court or before the jail authorities to serve out remaining portion of the sentence within six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the learned trial court shall issue necessary warrant of arrest upon the petitioner to comply the order of this Court. Let the copy of this order is served upon the learned trial court. _________________________________ SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated 17.09.2026 KS Whether the order is : Speaking: Yes Reasoned : Yes Reportable: No Non-Reportable: Yes 8 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1817 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 165 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1817 OF 2009 Dated:17.09.2026. KS