Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Vasakuri Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, S/o. Bala Rama Krishna – Appellant
Versus
State Of A.P., Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyd Rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
(Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.)
The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the concurrent conviction for the alleged offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’). The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram in C.C NO.35 of 2009 on 23.12.2009, convicted and sentenced the Revisionist for the offence under Section 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine Rs.3000/-. The said judgment was confirmed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bhimavaram in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2010, on 27.10.2010.
2. Sri. I.V.N Raju, learned Counsel for the Revisionist, while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 suffers from discrepancy and interestedness; ingredients of section 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ were not proved beyond reasonable doubt; the learned Trial Judge erred in finding that the Revisionist while driving vehicle turned at his back which resulted in causing alleged accident; the learned Courts below failed to a
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 affirmed the conviction for negligent driving, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction should not disturb concurrent findings unless there is a manifest injustice.
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 affirmed that minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
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.
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
The court upheld the conviction for causing death and injuries due to negligent driving, affirming the lower courts' findings while reducing the sentence from six to three months based on mitigating ....
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
