Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Cherukuri Rangaiah, Anantapur Dt., vs State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., Hyd., on 12 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.No.1558 OF 2012
Between:-
Cherukuri Rangaiah, S/o C. Venkatappa, Akuledu Village,
Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District,
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.
by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
...Respondent
****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 12.02.2025
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012
Dated 12.02.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
____________________________________
DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012
Dated 12.02.2025
* HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.No.1558 OF 2012
% 12.02.2025
# Between:
Cherukuri Rangaiah, S/o C. Venkatappa, Akuledu Village,
Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District,
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.
by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
...Respondent
****
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Vijaya Saradhi
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Mr K. Sandeep, Assistant Public
Prosecutor
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (1993) 4 SCC 10
2) AIR 1979 SC 1360
3) (2015) 13 SCC 444
4) (2015) 5 SCC 182
5) (2015) 5 SCC 197
6) (2012) 2 SCC 182
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012
Dated 12.02.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.No.1558 OF 2012
ORDER:
The revision was preferred under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C.,') against the judgment in Crl.A.No.168 of 2011 dated 29.08.2012 whereunder the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Anatapuram confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed for the offences under Section 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'the I.P.C.,') on the revisionist by the learned Magistrate. The revisionist was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month and payment of fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) for the offence under Section 337 of 'the I.P.C.,' and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and payment of fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) for the offence under Section 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and payment of fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) for the offence under Section 304-A of 'the I.P.C.,' by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Anantapur vide C.C.No.444 of 2010 dated 09.11.2011.
5
Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012 Dated 12.02.2025
2. The following grounds were urged in the revision.
a) The ingredients to constitute alleged offences were not made out by legal evidence;
b) The learned Courts below erred in relying on highly interested and discrepant testimony of PW.4, PW.18 and PW.20;
c) There was a failure to appreciate that a lorry was coming in opposite direction with lights focused on bulls of double bullock cart which was stopped on the right side of the road the cart suddenly started and turned on left the crime vehicle was not produced before the court;
d) The learned Appellate Court failed to see that PW.12 the owner of the alleged crime vehicle in his deposition stated that the accused was not the driver of his vehicle and his vehicle had not met with any accident;
e) The learned Appellate Court failed to see that there was a delay in examination of the vehicle by Motor Vehicle Inspector;
f) The learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that PW.4 was a planted witness who was in inimical terms with the accused;
g) The learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that no witness traveled in the accident vehicle identified accused as the driver of the auto;
h) The learned Judge failed to see that as per Ex.P1 the name of the accused was not mentioned as the driver of the auto.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
4. Sri M. Vijaya Saradhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the testimony of PW.4, PW.18, and PW.20 are not reliable as they are 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012 Dated 12.02.2025 interested, PWs.1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11 and 14 did not support the case of prosecution; the alleged accident occurred because bulls of the double bullock cart suddenly turned on the left side as the focus lights fell on the eye of the bulls; PW.12 being the owner of the vehicle testified that the accused was not his driver and the vehicle never met with an accident; PW.4 has got inimical terms with the petitioner; the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts; the learned Trial Court and also the appellate Court failed to appreciate the above contentions and erroneously convicted and sentenced the petitioner owing to misreading evidence.
5. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts; the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and came to correct conclusion in finding the guilt of the accused; there was neither any procedural irregularity nor misreading of the evidence; the concurrent findings of the guilty of the petitioner at two judicial forums cannot be disturbed, as such the revision has to be dismissed.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. I have perused the record.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.168 of 2011 dated 29.08.2012, passed by the learned III Additional District & 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012 Dated 12.02.2025 Sessions Judge (FTC), Anatapuram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?
8. PW.1 and PW.4 are the injured witnesses. PW.1 testified that PW.4, the deceased, some others and he was travelling in an auto which hit a double bullock cart and turned turtle resulting the deceased, PW.1 and PW.4 and others sustaining injuries and the deceased Dudekula Pakuruma @ Pakrubee died on the spot. In similar lines PW.2 and PW.3 supported the case of the prosecution. PW.4, who was a star witness to the case of the prosecution, supported the case. He further testified that one of the wooden branches of the bullock cart penetrated the stomach of the deceased who was sitting in the auto and died instantaneously. The death of the deceased was not disputed. PW.18 the Investigating Officer deposed that he received medical admit intimation and statement of PW.1 from Out Post Police Station, Government General Hospital, Anantapur, based on which he registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of 'the I.P.C.,' and sent requisition to the medical officer for conducting post mortem examination.
9. Ex.P1 was a document to put the criminal law into motion, and it is not an encyclopedia, but in that it was mentioned that the auto bearing No. AP 02 W 8746 was involved in the accident. Although PW.1 turned hostile, his entire evidence cannot be discarded since Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that part of the evidence of the hostile witness, if helpful to the case 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012 Dated 12.02.2025 of the prosecution, can be looked into by the Court as Ex.P1 was admitted by PW.1. Nothing concrete was elicited from the evidence of PW.4 in his cross- examination to spurn the evidence of the witness deposed in chief examination. PW.4 and the revisionist are belonging to the same village. In the absence of any motive attributed, the evidence of PW.4 cannot be ignored lightly. In the cross examination of PW.4, he deposed that no vehicle was coming in the opposite direction of the auto, and the auto was going on the left side of the road.
10. As per PW.19 Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) report under Ex.P13 the auto was damaged at its front right side indicator and scratches on its front side body; breaks were in good action the even action and the MVI took the vehicle for road test. He opined that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle vide Ex.P13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a lorry was coming in the opposite direction with lights focusing on the bulls of the bullock cart cannot be believed. No animosity was attributed to PW.4 against the petitioner. PW.4 clearly stated that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the revisionist. PWs.18 and 20, who are the Investigating Officers, deposed that their investigation revealed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the revisionist who was driving the offending auto. Non-examination of the persons, who were going on bullock cart by the police, is immaterial and it cannot be termed as a defective investigation.
9
Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012 Dated 12.02.2025
11. The evidence of a salutatory witness who testified in favour of the prosecution can be taken into consideration for sustaining conviction under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of 'the I.P.C'. Although, PW.12 owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 02 W 8746 deposed that he had not engaged the revisionist as a driver to his auto and not produced the revisionist before the police and his auto was not involved in any accident, which loses its significance in view of the documentary evidence of MVI report under Ex.P.13. The Investigating Officer testified that the owner of the vehicle had produced the revisionist before the Investigating Officer.
12. It is well settled by the Apex Court in Amarchand Agarwalla v. Santi Bose1 that normally the revisional jurisdiction of the Court has to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.
13. There were no material contradictions or omissions in the evidence of the witnesses to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear there are corroborating and inspiring the confidence to sustain conviction since the oral evidence and documentary evidence are supporting the case of the prosecution. The learned Appellate Court properly and correctly appreciated the evidence and there was no misreading of evidence. There were no perverse findings recorded either by
1. (1993) 4 SCC 10 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012 Dated 12.02.2025 the learned Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court. There was no material irregularity committed by the learned Courts below.
14. Undeniably, right to speedy trial which includes hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as annunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar2.
15. Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, the learned counsel urged this Court to apply the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the P.O.Act.,') and section 360 of 'the Cr.P.C.' In this regard it is apposite to refer the decision of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sanjiv Bhalla3 wherein at paragraph No.22, it is observed as under:
"22. It does appear that depending upon the facts of each case, causing death by what appears (but is not) to be a rash or negligent act may amount to an offence punishable under Part II of Section 304 IPC, not warranting the release of the convict under probation. There may also be situations where an offence is punishable under Section 304-A IPC in an accident "where mens rea remains absent" and refusal to release a convict on probation in such a case may be too harsh an approach to take. An absolute principle of law cannot be laid down that in no case falling under Section 304-A IPC should a convict be released on probation. This is certainly not to say that in all cases falling under Section 304-A IPC, the convict must be released on probation-it is only that the principles laid down in Sections 360 and 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Probation of Offenders Act should not be disregarded but should be followed and an appropriate decision, depending on the facts of the case, be taken in each case."
2. AIR 1979 SC 1360
3. (2015) 13 SCC 444 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012 Dated 12.02.2025
16. The Revisionist was a professional driver of Auto. Evidence shows that the Auto was driven at high speed rashly. In view of the above, the Revisionist is not entitled for any relief under 'the P.O.Act.'
17. In State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the reduced sentence imposed by the High Court and held that the Revisionist therein would not be entitled to the benefit of probation as he was professional driver, so no leniency or compassion can be shown unless mitigating circumstances were proved to be existing.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Mehtaab5 set aside the judgment of the High Court which let off the Accused therein for a period of sentence of 10 days already undergone.
19. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh6 set aside the judgment of the High Court which reduced the sentence of 15 days already undergone by the accused and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months.
20. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that as nearly sixteen years had elapsed between the date of the offence/accident and the present decision in this Revision and requests for imposing the sentence already undergone by the Revisionist. The alternative submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to impose punishment on the Revisionist to the
4. (2015) 5 SCC 182
5.(2015) 5 SCC 197
6. (2012) 2 SCC 182 12 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012 Dated 12.02.2025 sentence already undergone by him, cannot be considered in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred supra.
21. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reported that there are neither prior nor subsequent negative accidents against the Revisionist that he had been involved in similar offences. It is not the case of the prosecution that the Accused drove the Auto inebriated condition. There are no previous or subsequent adverse antecedes forthcoming against the Revisionist that he had indulged in similar offence. Taking into account the above factors, the imposition of rigorous imprisonment of six months is excessive and not proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
22. For the above reasons, the revision is disposed of, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six (06) months is converted into simple imprisonment for six (06) months under Section 304-A of 'the I.P.C.,' which is adequate and reasonable. The sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month and payment of fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) for the offence under Section 337 of 'the I.P.C.,' and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and payment of fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) for the offence under Section 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' imposed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Anantapur vide C.C.No.444 of 2010 dated 09.11.2011, shall hold good. The above sentences shall run concurrently. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of. 13
Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012 Dated 12.02.2025
23. The learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, for Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuram is directed to take steps forthwith for securing the presence of the Revisionist and follow the directions in this judgment.
24. The registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, for Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuram.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 12.02.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o KMS 14 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2012 Dated 12.02.2025 106 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1558/2012 12.02.2024 W KMS