Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Bhaskar Naidu, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 1 September, 2025
APHC010031732009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1446/2009
Between:
1. M. BHASKAR NAIDU, S/OM. MUNIRATHNAM, DRIVER, R/O
MANGALAM QUARTERS, TIRUPATHI RURAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, REP. BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
HYDERABAD.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision case by setting
aside the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.184 of 2006 dated 06-04-2009 on the
file of the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and Judgment
passed in C.C.No.18 of 2002, dated 17-10-2006 against the accused, on the
file of II Addl. J.F.C.M., Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1960 OF 2009
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
condone the delay of ''49'' days in filing the Crl.R.C.
IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1987 OF 2009
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
dispense with the filing of the Certified copy of CC.NO.18/2002, dated
17.10.2006 on the file of II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati,
Chittoor District.
IA NO: 3 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1998 OF 2009
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
suspend the sentence imposed in Judgment in Crl.A.No.184 of 2006, dated
06-04-2009 on the file of the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor
District, and CC.No.18 of 2002, dated 17-10-2006, on the file of II Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, by releasing the
petitioner pending criminal revision case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P. VIVEK
2. LEGAL AID
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case, filed under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟), is preferred by the petitioner/accused, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2006, on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati (for short, „the 1st Appellate Court), challenging the judgment, dated 06.04.2009, whereunder the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offences under Sections 337, 279, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC‟) and Section 134(a)(b) r/w.187 of M.V. Act vide Judgment dated 17.10.2006 in C.C.No.18 of 2002 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati (for short, „the trial Court‟).
32. By Judgment dated 17.10.2006 in C.C.No.18 of 2002 of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati (for short, 'the Trial Court'), convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him as follows: (i) Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for six (6) months for the offence under Section 337 IPC; (ii) RI for one (1) year for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC; (iii) RI for two (2) years for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and (iv) Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days for the offences punishable under Section 134(a)(b) r/w.187 of M.V. Act. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
4. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
On 01.09.2001 at 5:30 A.M., near the 37th turning on the first Ghat road between Tirupati and Tirumala, the driver of Jeep No. AP 16 W 5223, transporting pilgrims, drove in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of the vehicle, which overturned. As a result, several passengers sustained simple and grievous injuries. Two victims, Chandran and Bhavani, later succumbed to their injuries. All the injured were treated at SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati. Based on a statement given by A. Murali, a case was registered as Crime No. 34 of 2001 U/Secs.304-A, 338, and 337 IPC. Investigation confirmed that the accused was the driver responsible for the accident. He was arrested on 16.11.2001. After the investigation was completed, P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, filed a charge sheet.
5. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, took cognizance under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and sections 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act against the accused.
46. Upon the appearance of the accused, copies of the prosecution documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr. P.C.
7. 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 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and sections 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act and claimed to be tried.
8. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined, and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of 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.
9. The trial court, upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offences stated supra, vide Judgment dated 17.10.2006 in C.C.No.18 of 2002.
10. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 2006 before the 1st Appellate Court, and the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming 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.184 of 2006.
11. Heard Sri P. Vivek, learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for the petitioner/accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State.
512. Despite having raised multiple grounds against the conviction in the grounds of revision, the learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner/accused has limited his arguments exclusively to the quantum of the sentence.
13. 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".
14. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita V. State of Assam2, held that:
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."
15. 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 'Cr.P.C') 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."1
(2004) 7 SCC 659 2 (2009) 13 SCC 330 3 AIR 2022 SC 3283 6
16. In light of the settled legal position, upon perusal of the judgments, this Court finds that both the Courts, after recording cogent reasons concurrently held that the accused is found guilty for the offences under section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and Section 134(a)(b) r/w.187 of M.V. Act. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the 1 st Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and assessed the material placed before it in a proper and correct perspective.
17. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel on both sides, I see no illegality, error, or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 337, 279, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC‟) and Section 134(a)(b) r/w.187 of M.V. Act.
18. There is no justification for interfering with the findings of the 1st Appellate Court insofar as they pertain to setting aside the conviction under Sections 337, 279, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC‟) and Section 134(a)(b) r/w.187 of M.V. Act.
19. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrants any interference?
P O I N T:
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has sought a modification of the sentence, contending that further incarceration would be excessive and unjust, given that the accused had already served a significant portion of the sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision in Omanakkuttan V. State of Kerala4, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence awarded to accused punished for offences under section 308 and 326 IPC for the period already undergone. Reference has 4 (2021) 12 SCC 92 7 also been made to the Judgment in case of Murali V. State5, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the fact that appellants have no other criminal antecedent the punishment for offences under section 147, 148, 341, 352, 323, 324, 307 and 34 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone
21. 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.
22. 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 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.
23. True that in the instant case, the petitioner / accused has been found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 337, 279, 338, 304-A of the 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.
5(2021) 1 SCC 726 8
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the accused was approximately 43 years old at the time of the offence and has no prior criminal record. His family depends solely on him for support. He is now around 67 years old. He further submits that the incident occurred on 01.09.2001. According to the nominal rolls submitted by the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Nellore, the accused has been in custody for five months and twenty-two days.
25. The Trial Court imposed a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Sections 134(a)(b) r/w.187 of the M.V. Act. The conviction and sentence under Sections 337, 279, 338, 304-A of the IPC and Section 134(a)(b) r/w.187 of the M.V. Act, as recorded by the Trial Court, were affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court.
26. Regarding the period of imprisonment served by the accused, the nominal rolls submitted by the prison authorities indicate that he had completed five months and twenty-two days during the investigation, inquiry, and trial.
27. It appears from the record that nearly twenty-four years have passed since the incident involving the accused. During this extensive period, there is no material on record indicating that the accused has engaged in any further criminal activity or possesses a history of criminal antecedents. Considering the considerable passage of time since the incident, the absence of any further criminal involvement, this Court is persuaded to carefully weigh the implications of imposing further imprisonment at this stage. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could disrupt the accused's personal life and adversely affect the welfare of his family, who may be dependent on him. In light of these factors, this Court finds that this case presents exceptional circumstances that warrant judicial intervention, specifically concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to 9 modify or limit the imprisonment imposed on the accused, balancing the interests of justice with the mitigating factors that have emerged over time.
28. 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 offences alleged is on the higher side and can be considered excessive. Therefore, this Court finds it necessary to interfere with the impugned Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court only to the limited extent of reducing the quantum of sentence, to ensure that the punishment remains reasonable and proportionate to the proven guilt.
29. After considering the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/accused has no prior criminal antecedents. In terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C., any period of detention undergone by an accused during the investigation, inquiry, or trial of the same case must be set off against the term of imprisonment ultimately imposed. However, considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment should be modified to the period already undergone, which, in the circumstances, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the point is answered.
30. In the result, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed. While the conviction of petitioner / accused for the offence under Sections 337, 279, 338, 304-A of the IPC and Section 134(a)(b) r/w.187 of M.V. Act is upheld, as rendered by the 1st Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.184 of 2006 dated 06.04.2009 affirming the Judgment of the Trial Court in C.C.No.18 of 2002 dated 17.10.2006, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on petitioner / accused is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the 1 st Appellate Court stands reduced to that duration. The remainder of the Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court, insofar as it relates to the imposition of a 10 fine against the petitioner / accused, shall remain undisturbed. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall stand discharged.
Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTCIE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 01.09.2025 MS 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1446 of 2009 Date: 01.09.2025 MS