Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Aradyula Padma Rao, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 30 August, 2025
1
APHC010173292010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY,
DAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 834/2010
Between:
1. ARADYULA PADMA RAO, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, DRIVER, R/O.
YADAVURU VILLAGE, AMARTHALURU MANDAL, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF A P REP BY PP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the Sub-Inspector
Inspector of Police,
Amarthaluru Police Station,
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment dated 13.04.2010 in Crl.A.No. 392 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the XI Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, confirming the sentence and imprisonment imposed by the Trial court in C.C.No.330 .C.No.330 of 2008 by Honourable II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, the petitioner herein, presents this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 1192 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 IA NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 1225 OF 2010 2 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 sentence of imprisonment imposed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, in Crl.A.No. 392 of 2009 vide Judgment dated 13.04.2010, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CH RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER:
1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.'), is preferred by the petitioner/accused, challenging the Judgment dated 13.04.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.392 of 2009 by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali. By the said Judgment, the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction recorded by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali (for short, the 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.330 of 2008 dated 27.10.2009. Specifically, the sentence of six months' Simple Imprisonment (SI) for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), is reduced to four months' Simple Imprisonment.
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
On 06.12.2007 at about 7.15 p.m., while PW.2 was returning home after attending tuition and reached the old burial ground at Yadavarru Village, the accused, driving auto No.AP7TU1073 from Tenali at high speed in a rash and negligent 3 manner with manure bags loaded on either side, hit PW.2. As a result, she fell down and sustained bleeding injuries on her right temple, with blood oozing from her mouth and nostrils. PW.3, who was following her, witnessed the incident and informed PW.1, who rushed to the spot and shifted the injured first to an RMP doctor, then to Dr.Ravindrababu Nursing Home, and subsequently to GGH, Guntur, for better treatment. On receipt of Ex.P4, PW.5 visited the hospital, recorded PW.1's statement under Ex.P.1, and forwarded it to Amarthaluru Police Station. PW.6 registered Cr.No.104/2007 under Section 337 IPC vide Ex.P5, examined PWs.1 to 3, recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., inspected the scene, and prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P6. PW.4, who treated PW.2, issued a wound certificate. PW.6 arrested the accused on 03.01.2008 and sent him for remand. Hence, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 338 IPC.
4. The learned Trial Court took cognizance under Section 338 of the IPC against the accused. Upon the accused's appearance, copies of relevant documents were provided as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The accused was then examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., where the substance of the accusation was explained to him in Telugu regarding the offences under Section 338 of the IPC. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty, claiming his innocence.
5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses against the accused in Telugu, on that the accused denied the incriminating evidence and stated that he had no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.4
6. The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC as stated supra vide its Judgment, dated 27.10.2009 in C.C.No.330 of 2008 and convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (06) months for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.
7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.392 of 2009 before the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment from six months to four months, while affirming the fine imposed by the Trial Court. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.392 of 2009.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgments of the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court, insofar as they went against the petitioner, are contrary to law, the weight of evidence, and the probabilities of the case; the 1st Appellate Court ought to have allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner instead of partly allowing it; the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper legal perspective, rendering the conviction and sentence unsustainable; the prosecution evidence is insufficient to attract punishment under Section 338 IPC; there is no corroboration between medical evidence and oral testimonies, and both Courts relied on surmises and conjectures rather than reliable evidence;
further, PW.3, an independent witness, did not support the prosecution, and hence the interested testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 ought to have been scrutinized with greater caution; moreover, when PW.4 failed to produce X-ray or scan reports to substantiate the alleged grievous injury, conviction under Section 338 IPC is unjustified.
59. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State has, while supporting the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both Courts, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, by letting in valid and cogent evidence and that though the prosecution witnesses are interested witness, their evidence is sufficient to base conviction on the revision petitioner / accused for the offence under section 338 of IPC and that therefore, the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence do not warrant any inference by this Court.
10. I have given due consideration to the above arguments of the learned counsel of both sides and perused the evidence on record, including the impugned judgments of both Courts.
11. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:
(I) Whether the conviction recorded against the accused under Section 338 of IPC by the 1st Appellate Court, affirming the Trial Court's Judgment, is sustainable in law? (II) Does the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrant any interference?
POINT NO.I:
12. It is settled law as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that "in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court".
13. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court is to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court. This Court is not ordinarily required to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence which is already appreciated by the trial Court and the appellate Court unless it is found that there is clear non-
1(2004) 7 SCC 659 6 appreciation of the evidence already on record or appreciation of inadmissible evidence, or that finding has been recorded without any evidence on record. If there is evidence on record on the point of decision formulated by the Courts below for arriving at a conclusion of guilt, this Court is not required to enter into the records again to substitute its view in place of the view taken by the trial Court and the appellate Court.
14. PW.1 (Uppala Veeranjaneyulu) is the father of the injured girl (PW.2 - Uppala Laxmi), and PW.3 (Uppala Ramesh) is the son of PW.1's brother. Both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have concurrently held that the accused drove the offending vehicle at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing the horn, thereby causing the accident resulting in injuries to PW.2. The defence has not disputed the prosecution's case regarding the grievous injuries sustained by PW.2 in the said accident. The identity of the accused as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident has been clearly established through the testimonies of PWs.2 and 3. All three witnesses specifically deposed that the accused operated the vehicle without sounding the horn. The Trial Court rejected the defence counsel's contention regarding the absence of a Test Identification Parade, noting that such a procedure was unnecessary since the accused was already known to the witnesses.
15. PWs.2 and 3 have clearly deposed that the accused was driving the auto at the time of the accident. As per the specific case of the prosecution, the accident occurred when manure bags being transported in the auto struck the injured person (PW.2), causing her to fall to the ground. The evidence on record indicates that PW.2 was walking on the extreme left side of the road at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the testimony of PW.4 (Dr. K.Srilakshmi) confirms that PW.2 sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident and issued Ex.P.3 wound certificate.
716. Upon careful reading of the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court found their testimonies to be cogent, convincing, and fully supportive of the prosecution's case. Both Courts also noted that the crime vehicle (auto) was transporting manure at the time of the accident. The evidence on record establishes that PW.2 had sufficient opportunity to identify the accused as the driver of the vehicle.
17. No doubt the rash and negligent driving is a prerequisite for the offence punishable under section 338 of the IPC. The record establishes that the defence has not disputed the fact of sustaining grievous injuries by PW.2 in the accident. The involvement of the offending vehicle is conclusively proven. PW.1 lodged the report marked as Ex.P1, explicitly stating that the rash and negligent driving of the accused caused the accident. The evidence on record indicates that the accused failed to take reasonable precautions while operating the vehicle.
18. In matters of this nature, particularly involving road traffic accidents, the revision petitioner/accused, being a direct participant in the incident, is expected to provide his version of events, either orally or in writing, at least during the recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The purpose of recording the accused's statement in such cases is not a mere procedural formality, but serves a dual purpose: it offers the accused an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances and assists the Court in evaluating the defence, if any.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan2, has held in paragraph No.39 as follows:
39. It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the provisions of Section 313 CrPC are not a mere formality or purposeless. They have a dual purpose to discharge, firstly, that the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence should be put to the accused in accordance with law and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to the accused to explain his conduct or his version of 2 MANU/SC/0659/2012 8 the case. To provide this opportunity to the accused is the mandatory duty of the Court. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, then the consequences in law have to follow, particularly when it would be expected of the accused in the normal course of conduct to disclose certain facts which may be within his personal knowledge and have a bearing on the case.
20. It is evident from the record that during the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner/accused failed to provide any explanation. The testimony of the eyewitnesses consistently confirms that the accused was driving the crime vehicle at high speed.
21. Upon consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, the Trial Court concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the revision petitioner / accused, and the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC.
22. It is well settled that, in the absence of perversity or manifest error, a revision court is not expected to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by both Courts. In the present case, there is no material on record to question the credibility of PWs.1 to 6 or to disbelieve the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.6.
23. Upon a careful examination of the evidence on record, both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court concurrently held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. This Court has also gone through the evidence and finds no reason to take a view different from that of the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court.
24. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly assessed the materials placed before them. The findings were arrived at after a thorough and correct evaluation of the case from all relevant perspectives. Consequently, there is no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of both Courts regarding the conviction 9 of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC. Accordingly, Point No.I is answered in the negative.
POINT NO.II:
25. As reflected in the record, the Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500, with a default sentence of one month of simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC. The 1st Appellate Court reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to four months, while affirming the fine imposed by the Trial Court.
26. It is a well-established principle of sentencing policy that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven offence. The sentence should be neither nominal nor excessive. What constitutes a proportionate sentence must be determined on a case-by-case basis, having due regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each matter.
27. While ordering the sentence, the facts and circumstances of each of the case before the Court has to be appreciated on its own merits and the circumstances in one criminal case cannot be taken as a binding precedent in so far as the order on sentence in another case, unless the facts and circumstances of each of the instances corresponds to each other or exactly tallies. But always, the Court must bear in mind the cardinal principle that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, and it should not be excessive or exorbitant.
28. True that in the instant case, the petitioner / accused has been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no allegation that the accused was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his ability to drive at the time of the accident. The act was one of rash and negligent driving simpliciter, and not one involving inebriation, a factor which, if present, would have 10 constituted an aggravated and despicable offence warranting a stricter and more severe sentence.
29. In Hazara Singh V. Raj Kumar3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"10. ... it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict."
"11. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases."
30. When questioned by the Trial Court on the quantum of sentence, the petitioner / accused chose not to make any submission.
31. As seen from the record, the offence in question occurred on 06.12.2007, nearly 18 years ago, and the petitioner was approximately 23 years old at the time of the accident. Upon consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/accused is a first-time offender and has no prior criminal record or antecedents.
32. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused, his age, economic condition, and the significant passage of time since the incident, this Court is inclined to assess the implications of imprisonment at this juncture. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could severely disrupt the petitioner's personal life and adversely impact the welfare of his family, who may be dependent on him. Accordingly, this Court finds that the sentence imposed under Section 338 of the IPC is disproportionately severe and may be deemed excessive. In light of these factors, this Court views this case as presenting exceptional circumstances that warrant judicial 3 (2013) 9 SCC 516 11 intervention, particularly concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Given the absence of any prior criminal record, this Court concludes that the sentence imposed on the accused under Section 338 of the IPC should be reconsidered as excessive. Therefore, this Court deems it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgments solely to the extent of setting aside the imprisonment imposed by both Courts, while upholding the imposition of a fine of Rs.500/-, which adequately serves the interests of justice. Point No.II is answered accordingly.
33. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section 338 of the IPC, as affirmed by the judgments of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali (dated 27.10.2009 in C.C.No.330 of 2008) and the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, is upheld. However, the sentence is modified as follows: (i) The sentence of six months' Simple Imprisonment (SI) imposed by the Trial Court, as modified to four months by the 1st Appellate Court, shall stand set aside, and (ii) the fine imposed by the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, shall stand confirmed. Accordingly, the bail bonds of the accused are hereby discharged. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit a copy of this order, along with the case records, to both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court for necessary compliance.
Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 30.08.2025 SAK 12 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.834 OF 2010 DATE: 30.08.2025 SAK