Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tadivalasa Koteswara Rao, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 29 July, 2025
APHC010525522010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY-NINTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 527/2010
Between:
1. TADIVALASA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. RAMU, DRIVER OF AUTO
BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AP 35 U 198, R/O. PURITIPENTA
VILLAGE, GAJAPATHINAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High
Court Buildings, Hyderabad. High Court, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.PC Cr PC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to file the present Memorandum of
Criminal Revision Case to this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the calendar and
Judgment in Crl.A.no. 29/2008 dt 10.03.2010 of the file of the Sessions Judge
Vizianagaram, who confirmed the calendar and Judgment in CC.No.21 of
2007 of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram.
IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 790 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 filing the Certified copy of the judgment made in CC.No.
21/2007 dt . 01.09.2007 on the file of the JFCM, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram
District.
2
IA NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 796 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 /accused on bail by suspending the operation of
sentence and conviction imposed against the petitioner accused in Criminal
appeal No.29 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SUBRAHMANYAM
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court made the following:
ORDER
1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused assailing the judgment dated 10.03.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.29 of 2008 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (for short, '1st Appellate Court') whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 304A, 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') vide judgment dated 13.06.2008 passed in C.C.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram (for short, 'the Trial Court').
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 prosecution's case are that on the night of 13.01.2007 at 10 PM, the deceased (Gandreti Satyam), along with Shaik Alim and Pikka Simhachalam, boarded a goods auto (No.AP 35 11 198) carrying vegetable bags for sale at Vizianagaram Market. The accused, driving the 3 auto rashly and negligently at high speed on NH43 between Billalavalasa and Neliwada villages, lost control, causing the vehicle to overturn. As a result, all three sustained grievous injuries. They were immediately taken to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, where Gandren Satvam died on 16.01.2007 during treatment. The H.C.No.871, in charge of the hospital outpost, recorded the injured's statement and forwarded it to Bondapalli Police Station. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector registered the case in Crime No.4/2007 under Section 337 of IPC. Upon receiving the death report, the offence under Section 304A of IPC was included. An inquest was conducted over the deceased's body, the scene was photographed, witnesses were examined, and their statements recorded. The medical officer performed the postmortem examination. After receiving the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, wound certificates, and postmortem findings, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 304A, 338 and 337 of IPC, and Sections 184 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. This learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajapathinagaram, took cognizance against the accused under sections 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC and sections 184 r/w 177 of M.V.Act.
5. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of the prosecution documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.Р.С.
6. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet averments were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC and under Section 184 r/w 177 of the M.V. Act and claimed to be tried.
7. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 14 were examined, and Exs. P1 to P12 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of 4 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the same and stated that he had no defence witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and pleaded not guilty.
8. The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offences, as stated supra, vide its judgment, dated 13.06.2008 in C.C.No.21 of 2007 and convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of eight (8) months for the offence under Section 304A of IPC; and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ten days. He was also further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 184 r/w.177 of M.V. Act and, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ten days.
9. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2008 before the 1st Appellate Court, and the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2008.
10. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:
(I) Whether the conviction recorded against the accused under Section 304A, 337 and 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?5
POINT NO.I:
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the lower courts erred in convicting the petitioner instead of acquitting him, given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The courts should have disbelieved the testimony of PWs.1 to 3, as their cross-examinations reveal contradictions and introduce exaggerated facts. Notably, PW.2's claim that no vehicles were coming from the opposite direction contradicts the testimony of PWs.1 and 3, who confirmed that there was heavy traffic on the National Highway at the time of the incident. It is further submitted that the courts wrongly relied solely on the chief examination of PWs.1 to 3, neglecting the material content of their cross-examinations, which favour the petitioner. The accused's version, that he acted in good faith to avoid a collision by turning right and applying the brakes, without driving rashly or negligently, was overlooked. The intact condition of the auto, despite turning turtle, as confirmed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report (Ex.P.8), supports this claim. The learned Sessions Judge failed to consider that the heavy traffic and the lorry's presence contributed to the accident when the petitioner applied the brakes. Learned counsel further contends that the absence of damage to the auto, as evidenced in the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, disproves the prosecution's allegation of rash and negligent driving. This alone warrants rejecting the prosecution's case against the petitioner.
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. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam2, held that:
1(2004) 7 SCC 659 2 (2009) 13 SCC 330 6
9. ....if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence.
10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice.
8. ....The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure."
14. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. The State of Chattisgarh3, thus:
"8. ....The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'CrPC') vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings."
15. From the defence version, the stand of the accused is that he was not driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner; at the time of the accident, a lorry approached from the opposite direction at high speed; in an attempt to avoid a collision, the accused applied sudden brakes to the auto at the scene of the incident, which caused the vehicle to overturn; consequently, the deceased, Gandreti Satyam, who was seated in the cabin of the auto, was thrown onto the road and succumbed to his injuries. The material on record also indicates that the fact of the deceased's death, resulting from injuries sustained in the accident, is not in dispute.
3AIR 2022 SC 3283 7
16. The record indicates that PW.1 (K. Satyam), PW.2 (Shaik Alim), and PW.3 (Pitta Simhachalam) are injured witnesses in connection with the same accident. Their testimony establishes that they boarded an auto bearing registration No.AP 35 U 198, which was being driven by the accused at the time of the accident, along with their respective vegetable produce, at around 10:30 PM to travel to Vizianagaram. The accident occurred at approximately 12:30 a.m. when the vehicle overturned on NH-43 near the Billalavalasa road junction in Nelivada village. The version of events given by PWs.1 to 3, both as to the manner of the accident and the fact that the accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, has not been disputed by the accused. Their evidence further reveals that all injured persons were shifted in an ambulance to the District Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram, for treatment, and that Gandreti Satyam (the deceased) was subsequently referred to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, for advanced medical care.
17. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 further reveals that they had requested the accused to drive the auto slowly; however, the accused did not heed their advice. Specifically, PW.1 stated during cross-examination that he asked the accused nearly ten times to slow down the vehicle. Although it was suggested to PWs.1 to 3 in cross-examination that a lorry was approaching at high speed from the opposite direction at the time of the accident, and that the accused applied sudden brakes to avoid a collision, causing the auto to overturn, nothing was elicited during their cross-examination to discredit their testimony or substantiate the defence version. Furthermore, no material has been placed before the court to support the claim that the accident occurred due to a lorry approaching at high speed from the opposite direction.
18. The prosecution examined PW.9, the Medical Officer who treated PWs.1 to 3 and issued Exs.P.5 to P.7, the wound certificates. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 regarding the injuries they sustained, as reflected in Exs.P.5 to P.7, has not been disputed. The medical evidence, therefore, corroborates the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3.
819. As previously noted, the defence has not disputed the prosecution's case that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The prosecution examined PW.10, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, to prove Ex.P.8, the M.V.I. report. The evidence of PW.10 establishes that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects in the crime vehicle.
20. The prosecution examined PW.11, a Head Constable, to establish that on 14.01.2007, he received the medical intimation marked as Ex.P.9 and, based on the statement of PW.1 marked as Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No. 4 of 2007. A perusal of Ex.P.1 indicates the rash and negligent driving of the accused at the time of the accident. PW.13, also a Head Constable, testified that upon receiving the medical intimation, he rushed to the District Headquarters Hospital, where PW.1 gave him the statement (Ex.P.1). He then handed over both Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.9 to the Head Constable.
21. The prosecution examined PW.5, who testified that the accused informed him about the incident that occurred at the Billalavalasa road junction and about the injuries sustained by the inmates of the auto. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW.6, a photographer, who captured photographs of the scene of the offence and handed over both the photographs and its negatives to the Sub-Inspector of Police. PW.7, a mediator, was examined to prove the observation of the scene of offence. His testimony indicates that he accompanied the police to the scene, where they found a goods carrier auto bearing registration No.AP 35 U 198, which had been overturned. The scene observation report was marked as Ex.P.3. The evidence of PW.8, an inquest panchayatdar, shows that he was present during the inquest over the deceased's body, signed the inquest report, and the same was marked as Ex.P.4. Additionally, the evidence of PW.12, an Assistant Professor, indicates that he conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and issued Ex.P.12, the postmortem certificate.
922. A rash act is an overhasty act done without due deliberation and caution. In rashness, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference to consequences. Negligence means breach of duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. Culpable negligence is acting without consciousness that illegal or mischievous effects will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent on him, and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection.
23. The testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 indicate that the accused was driving the auto in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident. As a result, one Gandreti Satyam, who was seated in the cabin of the auto, fell onto the road and died due to the injuries sustained. PWs.1 to 3 also sustained injuries in the said accident. Nothing was elicited during the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 to discredit their evidence. There appears to be no reason for them to falsely implicate the accused, especially given that they were travelling in his auto. Furthermore, there is no indication that they would deliberately shield the real culprit and falsely testify against the accused.
24. Both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court accepted the prosecution's case, holding that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 establishes the essential elements of the offence under Section 304A of IPC, namely, rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. The 1st Appellate Court also noted that the degree of criminal liability could be assessed based on the accused's rash and negligent driving, which resulted in the auto overturning during the accident. Both Courts relied on the consistent version of PWs.1 to 3, who stated that despite their repeated requests to the accused to drive the auto slowly, he ignored their pleas and continued to drive in a rash and negligent manner.
1025. The evidence on record indicates that the accused failed to take any reasonable precautions while driving the vehicle. As rightly observed by both Courts, the accused did not adduce any evidence to explain how the accident occurred. Nothing was brought out during the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 to even remotely suggest that a lorry was approaching from the opposite direction and that the auto driver attempted to avert a collision, resulting in the accident. The 1st Appellate Court also noted that, even during the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused did not offer any explanation regarding the incident and merely denied the prosecution's case.
26. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW.14) and the rough sketch (Ex.P.11) prepared by the police does not indicate that a lorry was approaching from the opposite direction at the time of the accident. As rightly observed by both Courts, the absence of damage to the auto cannot be a valid ground to discredit the consistent and credible version of PWs.1 to 3 regarding how the accident occurred.
27. Importantly, no material has been brought on record to suggest that the PWs.1 to 3 bore any animosity toward the accused or had any vested interest in falsely implicating him. There are no allegations of enmity, bias, or undue influence which could taint their credibility or render their testimonies unreliable. The naturalness of their testimonies, coupled with the absence of contradiction or exaggeration, reinforces the view that their statements are genuine and voluntary. The consistency and coherence evident across the testimonies of the PWs.1 to 3 further enhance their probative value. Their version is in substantial harmony with that of other documentary evidence, and collectively form a cogent and credible chain of evidence pointing to the accused's involvement in the offence. This court is of the considered view that the testimonies are both truthful and trustworthy.
28. Both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have independently evaluated the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and have recorded concurrent findings 11 affirming their reliability. These findings are neither perverse nor based on conjecture, and are supported by the record. In the absence of any compelling reason to disbelieve these assessments, this court finds no justifiable ground to take a contrary view regarding the credibility of the said witnesses, i.e., PWs.1 to 3. Accordingly, their testimony is accepted as credible.
29. Upon a careful examination of the evidence on record, both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court concurrently held that the accident was the result of the accused's rash and negligent driving. This court has also gone through the evidence in detail and finds no reason to take a view different from that of the Courts below.
30. 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 properly 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 of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337, and 338 of the IPC. Accordingly, Point No.I is answered in the negative.
POINT NO.II:
31. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, who are entirely dependent on his income, and that he has no prior criminal record, including any violations of traffic rules. It is further submitted that in similar cases involving a higher number of deaths and injuries, this court has, on multiple occasions, reduced the sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, a request is made for the court to take a lenient view. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, in the alternative, prays for a reduction of the sentence and places reliance on the judgment of 12 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paul George V. State of NCT of Delhi4. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner-accused may be granted the benefit of the sentence already undergone. He further brought to the notice of this court the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi)5, wherein the Apex Court, considering the facts of the case, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two (2) months to one (1) month of rigorous imprisonment.
32. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab V. Dil Bahadur6 after referring the judgment of State of M.P. V. Bablu7 held as under:
"the prime objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is necessary with the gravity nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is therefore, the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as awarding the lesser sentence encourages any criminal and as a result of the same, the society suffers."
33. In Thangasamy V. State of Tamil Nadu 8, the offences alleged and conviction ordered was for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC. The vehicle involved was a Government passenger Bus and the accident had resulted in the death of four persons. After conviction, when ultimately the accused approached the Hon'ble Apex Court, a request was made before the Hon'ble Apex Court for reducing the sentence. In that regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court re-emphasized its policy on sentencing in the following words:
"84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and 4 (2008) 4 SCC 185 5 MANU/SC/0149/1976 6 Criminal Appeal No.844/2023 SLP (Criminal) No.2984 of 2018 dated 28.03.2023 7 2014 (9) SCC 281 8 (2019) 16 SCC 235 13 gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The Courts have evolved certain principles the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."
34. 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.
35. 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 cases corresponds to each other or exactly tallies. But always, the court must borne in mind of 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.
36. True that in the instant case, the petitioner / accused has been found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304A, 338 and 337 of IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public road, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of a precious human life. 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 constituted an aggravated and despicable offence warranting a stricter and more severe sentence.
37. The record indicates that the petitioner was approximately 35 years old at the time of the accident, which occurred on 13.01.2007 nearly 18 years ago 14 and that there are mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction in the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, which the Sessions Court later confirmed. It is established that the punishment for an offence under Section 304A of the IPC may consist of imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or a fine, or both, with the extent of the sentence left to the court's discretion. However, in 1973, the Indian Parliament introduced a limitation on this judicial discretion by inserting sub-section (4) into Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision mandates that when a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for less than three months for an offence punishable with imprisonment of one year or more, the court must record its reasons for such a sentence. This amendment clarifies that imprisonment should be the norm, while imposing only a fine should be the exception in such cases. When Parliament enacted this subsection, it would have certainly noticed that the prescribed punishment for an offence under Section 304A of the IPC includes imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both.
38. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused, his age, economic condition, the passage of time since the accident, and the absence of any prior criminal antecedents, this court finds that the sentence imposed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304A of the IPC is on the higher side and can be considered excessive. Therefore, this court finds it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgments only to the limited extent of reducing the quantum of sentence, to ensure that the punishment remains reasonable and proportionate to the proven guilt. In light of the above, the sentence of eight months' imprisonment, as awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the 1st Appellate Court for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, is hereby reduced to three months, which would meet the ends of justice. The other sentences imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court shall remain undisturbed. In light of the overall facts and circumstances, this court finds it just and proper to partly allow the criminal revision case. Accordingly, the point No. II is answered.
1539. As a result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. While affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram, dated 13.06.2008 in C.C.No.21 of 2007, as well as the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2008, dated 10.03.2010, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused for the offence under section 304A of IPC is hereby reduced from eight months to three months. The period of imprisonment, if any, already undergone by the accused shall be set off against the sentence now imposed, in terms of section 428 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajapathinagaram, to serve the remaining sentence, if any. Failing which, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take appropriate steps against the petitioner. The remainder of the judgment passed by the 1st Appellate Court shall remain undisturbed. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order, along with the respective records, to both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court forthwith.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 29.07.2025 MS / SAK 16 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 527of 2010 Date: 29.07.2025 SAK