Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y.LAKSHMANA RAO
Cherukuri Rangaiah S/o C. Venkatappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. 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 dated09.11.2011.
2. Th
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 court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
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 and injuries due to negligent driving, affirming the lower courts' findings while reducing the sentence from six to three months based on mitigating ....
The High Court's role in revision limits reassessment of evidence and focuses on legality, confirming that undue sympathy in sentencing can undermine the judicial system's integrity.
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....
Revisional jurisdiction must not re-evaluate factual evidence but correct manifest legal errors, ensuring justice is served without infringing on trial court determinations.
Convictions upheld on grounds of negligence in fatal accident; sentencing modified for proportionality based on circumstances.
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
