Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dummanabona Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of A.P., on 10 November, 2025
1
APHC010692502017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 185/2017
Between:
1. DUMMANABONA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESHWAR RAO,
AGED 37 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, R/O. KATTUBADIPALEM,
NEAR ANKAMMA THALLI TEMPLE, G.KONDUR MANDAL, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A.P P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at
Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Hyderabad.
...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 present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., before this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.265/2015 dt.10.01.2017 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, conforming the judgment in C.C.No.233/2012 dt.02.09.2015 on the file of III Met Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 269 OF 2017 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 tthe he certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.233/2012 dated 0 02.09.2015 9.2015 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the time being in the interest of justice.
2IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 292 OF 2017 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 release the petitioner on bail after suspending the operation of the sentence imposed in C.C.No.233/2012 dated 02.09.2015 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.265/2015 dated 10.01.2017 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada pending disposal of the Crl.RC.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER:
1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused, assailing the Judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.265 of 2015 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short, the '1st Appellate Court'), whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offence under section 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'M.V.Act') vide Judgment dated 02.09.2015 passed in C.C.No.233 of 2012 by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada (for short, the 'Trial Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as they were before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.06.2012 at about 2:00 P.M., PW.1 was proceeding from his college at Jupudi to his residence at B Colony, Kondapalli, on his Bajaj Discover 3 motorcycle bearing registration No.AP16 0598. When he reached near NTR Circle at Kondapalli, the accused, who was driving an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP16 TB 244, allegedly drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, without sounding the horn, and collided with PW.1's motorcycle coming from the opposite direction. The accused then fled from the scene, abandoning the auto-rickshaw at the spot. As a result of the impact, PW.1 fell from his motorcycle and sustained a fracture injury below the right knee. He was subsequently shifted to Time Hospital, Vijayawada, for treatment. Upon receiving information, LW.7, Woman Assistant Sub-Inspector, Penamaluru Police Station, recorded the statement of PW.1. Based on his statement, PW.3 registered a case, conducted investigation, arrested the accused, and produced him before the Court for remand. After obtaining the wound certificate of the injured, LW.9, Sub-Inspector of Police, filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 297/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 338 of the IPC and Sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V.Act.
4. The learned Trial Court took cognizance under Section 338 of the IPC and Sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V.Act against the accused. Upon his appearance, copies of relevant documents were furnished 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 and 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 3 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 to the accused in Telugu, on that the accused denied the incriminating evidence and 4 stated that he had no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.
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 the IPC and Sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V.Act as stated supra vide its judgment, dated 02.09.2015 in C.C.No.233 of 2012 and convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six (06) months for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month and further convicted the accused under sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V.Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for seven days, out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.1,200/-
is ordered to be paid to PW.1 towards compensation under section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.
7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.265 of 2015 before the 1 st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the Trial Court in C.C.No.233 of 2012, dated 02.09.2015. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.265 of 2015.
8. In the revision petition, it is contended that the both courts erred in convicting the petitioner under Section 338 IPC, sentencing him to six months' imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000; the conviction was based on an erroneous finding of negligence despite the prosecution's failure to examine material witnesses; the non-examination of the doctor left the nature of the injuries unproved; the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 was neither convincing nor sufficient to sustain a conviction; the rough sketch contradicts the FIR, and the MVI was 5 not examined to establish the condition of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the petitioner, an auto driver and sole breadwinner of his family, has been subjected to an excessive and unjust sentence.
9. During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is pressing the revision petition only insofar as the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is concerned, but the petitioner is not challenging the conviction under Section 338 of the IPC. The petitioner's counsel further submits that the sentence imposed may be modified. It is contended that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner of his family. Furthermore, the petitioner has no prior criminal record.
10. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, while supporting the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both Courts, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. A perusal of the material on record reveals both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have concurrently concluded that the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 unequivocally establishes the circumstances leading to the accident. Specifically, both witnesses have asserted, in a clear and consistent manner, that the driver of the auto was operating the vehicle at a high speed and, as a direct consequence of such rash and negligent driving, collided with PW.1, thereby causing injury. It is noteworthy that the defence did not offer any suggestion or raise any doubt regarding the identity of the accused as the driver of the auto at the relevant time. This omission on the part of the defence significantly reinforces the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented by PWs.1 and 2. Given this, the unshaken testimony of the prosecution witnesses firmly establishes that the accused, by virtue of his rash and negligent driving, was the proximate cause of the accident, which resulted in injuries to PW.1. In light of these facts, the conclusion of both Courts holding 6 the accused responsible for the accident are well-founded and reflect a careful assessment of the evidence.
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 1st Appellate Court unless it is found that there is clear non-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 1st Appellate Court.
14. Upon considering the judgments of both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court, this Court finds that both courts concurrently and with cogent reasoning held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 338 of the IPC and Sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V.Act, beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly convicted him. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the both the Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence and assessed the material placed before it in a proper and correct perspective.
1(2004) 7 SCC 659 7
15. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel on both sides, I see no illegality, error, or perversity in the findings of the both Courts regarding the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC and Sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V.Act.
16. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:
Does the sentence passed by the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, warrant interference?
P O I N T:
17. As reflected in the record, the Trial Court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months on the accused for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC, along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and further imposed a sentence on the accused to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each for the offence under sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V.Act, which was upheld by the 1st Appellate Court.
18. 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.
19. 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.
820. 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 constituted an aggravated and despicable offence warranting a stricter and more severe sentence.
21. In Hazara Singh V. Raj Kumar2, 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."
22. Upon being questioned by the Trial Court on the aspect of sentence, the petitioner / accused sought leniency, submitting that he bears the responsibility of maintaining his entire family.
23. As seen from the record, the offence in question occurred on 04.06.2012, nearly 13 years ago, and the petitioner was approximately 34 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.
2(2013) 9 SCC 516 9
24. 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 that this case presents exceptional circumstances warranting judicial 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 to impose a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 338 of IPC and Rs.200/- each for the offence under sections 134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, which adequately serves the interests of justice. Point is answered accordingly.
25. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section 338 of the IPC and sections 134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, as affirmed by the judgments of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, (dated 02.09.2015 in C.C.No.233 of 2012) and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, (dated 10.01.2017 in Crl.A.No.265 of 2015) is upheld. However, the sentence is modified as follows: (i) the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment (RI) imposed under section 338 of the IPC is hereby set aside, and (ii) the fine imposed by the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, is hereby confirmed. If the fine imposed by the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1 st Appellate Court, has not been paid by the accused, the Trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with the due procedure of law. The 10 remainder of the Trial Court's judgment, as affirmed by the 1 st Appellate Court, stands undisturbed. 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: 10.11.2025 SAK 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 185 of 2017 Date: 10.11.2025 SAK