Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Kudipudi Srinadh, S/o. Narasimha Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
(Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.)
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. 251 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Amalapuram, whereby and where-under the revisionist was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months while allowing the appeal in-part. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram (FAC), Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, after trial, convicted and sentenced the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.,’) to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; for the offence punishable under Section 338 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ a fine of Rs.1,000/-; and for the offence under Section 337 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ a fine of Rs.400 /- was imposed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Mr Polisetty Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the revisionist had reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that e
The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction should not disturb concurrent findings unless there is a manifest injustice.
The court confirmed the conviction for negligence under Section 304-A IPC but reduced the sentence from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment due to the Revisionist's age....
The court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Concurrent findings of guilty must be upheld unless glaring defects are present or a miscarriage of justice occurs; professional drivers may not qualify for probation under Section 304-A IPC.
The scope of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited to addressing manifest errors or legal bar against proceedings, emphasizing that revisional courts cannot review evidence as appellate court....
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while reducing the sentence to one year based on mitigating circumstances.
Convictions upheld on grounds of negligence in fatal accident; sentencing modified for proportionality based on circumstances.
The court held that concurrent findings of two lower courts regarding negligence and causation in a motor vehicle accident are binding unless proven erroneous, reinforcing limitations on the scope of....
Elapse of time is not a ground to trivialize seriousness of a crime committed by offender and to take a lenient view in matter of punishment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
