HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ****

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.No.1558 OF 2012 Between:-

Cherukuri Rangaiah, S/o C. Venkatappa, Akuledu Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District, …Petitioner Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.

by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

…Respondent ****

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 12.02.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No ____________________________________

DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO * HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ****

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.No.1558 OF 2012 % 12.02.2025 # Between:

Cherukuri Rangaiah, S/o C. Venkatappa, Akuledu Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District, …Petitioner Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.

by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

…Respondent ****

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Vijaya Saradhi ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Mr K. Sandeep, Assistant Public Prosecutor Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) (1993) 4 SCC 10

2) AIR 1979 SC 1360 3) (2015) 13 SCC 444

4) (2015) 5 SCC 182 5) (2015) 5 SCC 197 6) (2012) 2 SCC 182 THE HON’BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.No.1558 OF 2012

ORDER:

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 1^st Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Anantapur vide C.C.No.444 of 2010 dated

09.11.2011.

2. The following grounds were urged in the revision.

a) The ingredients to constitute alleged offences were not made out by legal evidence;

b) The learned Courts below erred in relying on highly interested and discrepant testimony of PW.4, PW.18 and PW.20;

c) There was a failure to appreciate that a lorry was coming in opposite direction with lights focused on bulls of double bullock cart which was stopped on the right side of the road the cart suddenly started and turned on left the crime vehicle was not produced before the court;

d) The learned Appellate Court failed to see that PW.12 the owner of the alleged crime vehicle in his deposition stated that the accused was not the driver of his vehicle and his vehicle had not met with any accident;

e) The learned Appellate Court failed to see that there was a delay in examination of the vehicle by Motor Vehicle Inspector;

f) The learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that PW.4 was a planted witness who was in inimical terms with the accused;

g) The learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that no witness traveled in the accident vehicle identified accused as the driver of the auto;

h) The learned Judge failed to see that as per Ex.P1 the name of the accused was not mentioned as the driver of the auto.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecut