APHC010709982010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 195/2010 Between: 1. SHAIK KHAJA MOHIDDIN SHERIFF, S/O AMEERDDIN, DRIVER OF AUTO RICKSHAW NO.AP 5V 826 DRAKSHARAMA VILLAGE, E.G.DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto present this Crl.R.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.3101/2007, dated 27.01.10 on the file of the Court of the VII Addl. Sessions Judge, E.G.Dist., at Kakinada as confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.584/2005, dated 08.10.07 on the file of the IV Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, E.G.Dist. IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 281 OF 2010 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 dispense with the filing of certified copy of the Judgment passed in C.C.No.584/2005, dated 08.10.07 on the file of the IV Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, E.G.Dist. IA NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 293 OF 2010 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.195 of 2010 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 enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the execution of sentence imposed of Judgment passed in Crl.A.No. 301 of 2007, dt. 27-1-2010 on the file of the Court of the VII Addl. Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada as confirming the Judgment passed in CC.No. 584 of 2005, dt. 08-10-2007 on the file of the Court of the IV Addl. J.F.C.M., Kakinada, East Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.195 of 2010 The Court made the following Order: The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against a judgment dated 27.01.2010 on the file of the Court of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada in Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2007, confirming the order in C.C.No.584 of 2005, dated 08.10.2007, passed by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada. 2. The learned Courts below have passed concurrent findings by holding that the petitioner to be guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A & 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is a driver of an auto. On 09.05.2005 at about 6:00 P.M., he drove his auto along with deceased & PWs.1 & 2. They are going to attend a dance party at Kapavaram Village. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused has driven the auto in a rash and negligent manner. At about 8:00 P.M., when the auto reached a culvert, where there is a sharp turning/curve, the accused unable to control his vehicle and has applied sudden breaks. As a result, the auto was turned turtle, thereby caused injuries to the inmates of the auto. All of them have sustained injuries and were admitted to the Government Hospital. The deceased has sustained the injury in his spinal cord and thereafter, he was shifted to the private hospital and expired in the said private hospital, after two (02) months. Charges were framed under Sections 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC. During trial, prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and several documents 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.195 of 2010 were also exhibited as Exs.P1 to 12. After hearing the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court found the petitioner to be guilty for offence punishable under Sections 304-A & 338 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four (04) months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. The order of conviction was challenged before the learned Appellate Court but the Appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of conviction. Hence, the instant criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order of conviction of sentence is illegal and improper. The deceased has expired due to other reasons but not due to the alleged accident. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner at the time of the accident, thereby charges have not proved against the petitioner and he may be acquitted. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that after the accident, PWs.1 & 2 have sustained bodily injuries and deceased has sustained spinal cord injury. Due to which, he was initially admitted in the Government hospital and shifted to the private hospital. Thereafter, he was died in the said private hospital due to septicemic shock. He submits that the injury of the deceased was so grave and that he could not recover. He further submits that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is consistent about rash and negligent driving at the 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.195 of 2010 time of the accident. Thus, the prosecution has exclusively proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I perused the observations of the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Court. It appears from the evidence of the autopsy doctor, who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased that the deceased was admitted in the Government hospital on 09.05.2005 i.e., on the date of accident and the deceased was died in Area Hospital, Ramchandrapuram, on 25.07.2005, The doctor, who was examined as PW.5 has opined that the death was caused due to septicemic shock with malnutrition. During cross-examination, he deposed that during two (02) months, the deceased was bedridden, which means he could not able to move his lower limbs and thereby ulcer developed on back side of buttock and was infected, thereby he died due to septicemic shock. PW.6 is the doctor, who examined deceased from the first instance as also stated in his report that after such injury, patient has sustained spinal cord injury and was unable to move both the lower limbs. 8. On perusal of the evidence of doctors as PWs.5 & 6, it appears that the deceased had suffered injury to his spinal cord due to accident, as a result of which, he could not move his both lower limbs. Thereafter, while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital, he died due to septicemic shock caused by the injury to his buttock. The deceased was admitted to the hospital only 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.195 of 2010 due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, there is a direct nexus between the alleged accident and the death of the deceased. Thus, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have no merit in this case. 9. In considering the rash and negligent driving of the present petitioner, it appears that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have categorically scanned the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 and have come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver i.e., the petitioner. I have also perused the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 and the same is corroborative of each other and is clinching to communicate the alleged crime. 10. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the order of conviction and the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. 11. It appears that the alleged incident is of the year 2005, about 20 years have lapsed. However, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendran vs Sub Inspector of Police1, involving an offence under Section 304 of IPC, a lenient view may be adopted. 12. Considering the long pendency of the instant litigation, the order of suspension of sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court against the petitioner is hereby modified to a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to pay fine amount before the learned 1 2021 Supreme(SC) 298 7 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.195 of 2010 Trial Court within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which the order of sentence shall prevail. 13. Let a copy of this order shall be served upon the learned Trial Court for ready reference. 14. With above observations, the instant Criminal Revision is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:19.09.2026 KPV 8 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.195 of 2010 135 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:195 of 2010 19.09.2026 KPV