IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Palagoni Sekhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Crl. RC No.1273 of 2009
Decided On : 04-03-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview and details of the case (Para 1 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. trial court procedure and findings (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. defense arguments presented (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. witness testimonies and evidence (Para 15 , 17 , 22) |
| 5. the arguments focused on the sufficiency of evidence from witnesses and the credibility of the conviction. (Para 24) |
| 6. the court affirmed the conviction based on statutory obligations and evidence presented. (Para 25) |
| 7. court's findings on negligence (Para 27 , 29) |
| 8. conclusion and directive to trial court (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT /ORDER :
Challenge in this criminal revision case is to the judgment, dated 28.07.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2009 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereunder the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant, confirming the conviction and sentence against them in CC No.284 of 2008, dated 19.02.2009, on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole, for the offence under Section 304-A INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'), but modified the simple imprisonment of two years into six months.
2. The parties to this criminal revision case will hereinafter be referred as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, according to the contents of charge-sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddipadu Police Station in Crime No.136 of 2007 against the accused namely Polagoni Sekhar, S/o. Lakhsmaiah, is as follows :
(ii) On 23.10.2007, at about 03.00 a.m., the deceased and LW5-Kunchala Srinu, left Ongole alongwith kerosene drum rickshaw with a view to go to Doddavaram Village to distribute the kerosene. After having a tea at Throvagunta Village, they were going towards Doddavarappadu Village. After crossing Maddipadu Village, accused driver of Lorry Bearing No.AP 16 TW 1638, while proceeding on the same direction, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and without taking precautionary measures and lost control over the vehicle and hit to the kerosene rickshaw of the deceased, resulting in which the deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot.
(iii) On 23.10.2007 at 07.00 a.m., on receipt of a report of the accused, LW13-the S.I. of Police, Maddipadu Police Station registered a case in Crime No.136 of 2007 under Section 304-A I.P.C. and investigated into. He visited the scene of offence, prepared observation report attested by LW8-Kunchala Sankar and LW9-Savanam Chakrapani as mediators. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and got photographed the scene of offence. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panch witnesses and recorded their statements. Later he forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination. LW11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued P.M. certificate, opining that the cause of the death is due to 'shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries'. LW12-the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued report stating that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects. On 24.10.2007, at 11.00 a.m., LW12 arrested the driver in Maddipadu Police Station and sent him for judicial remand after seizing original trip sheet from him. Hence, the charge-sheet.
4. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole, took cognizance under Section 304-A of the IPC and after appearance of accused and on compliance of the provisions under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), examined the accused under Section 251 C
The court confirmed that party negligence resulting in death is a breach of statutory duty under Section 304-A IPC, as supported by eyewitness testimony and accident investigation findings.
On account of delay in recording statement of witness by Police, case of prosecution cannot be thrown out.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and documentary evidence, must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonab....
The main legal point established is that rash and negligent driving leading to death and injuries can result in conviction under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving causing death but reduced the sentence to one month, considering mitigating circumstances and the time elapsed since the incident.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.