APHC010024002023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY IA NOs.5 OF 2023 & 6 OF 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 54 OF 2023 Between:

Pullaganti Jagadish ...PETITIONER A N D The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. T BALAJI

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

C O M M O N O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment, dated 18.01.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2022 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case No.272 of 2019 vide Judgment, dated 05.08.2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet.

2. A case in Crime No.97 of 2019 of Chitvel Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and Section 3 read with 181 and Section 5 read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the MV Act’) was registered as against the petitioner herein/accused No.1 along with accused No.2. After full-fledged trial, vide Judgment, dated 05.08.2022, learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet, convicted the petitioner herein/accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and Section 3 read with 181 of the MV Act in terms of Section 255 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC; the petitioner herein/accused No.1 was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with 181 of the MV Act. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet acquitted the accused No.2 of the aforesaid offences in terms of Section 255 (1) CrPC.

3. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, petitioner/accused No.1 preferred the Criminal Appeal before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet. On reappreciation of entire evidence brought on record, the Appellate Judge, vide Judgment, dated 18.01.2023 in Criminal Appeal no.68 of 2022, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused No.1 preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

4. On 16.07.2024, when the matter was taken up, petitioner herein/accused No.1, respondent No.2/complainant, who is brother of one Thathamsetty Subrahamnayam (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) and respondent No.3 herein/son of the deceased are present before this Court and filed IA No.6 of 2023 seeking permission to compound the case. They produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and the learned counsel for 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein identified both parties in the open Court. This Court questioned 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein with regard to compromise and they categorically stated to that extent that they voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in arriving at the compromise. This Court is satisfied with the identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise.

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, 2012 (9) Scale 257 the Hon’ble Apex court held at paragraph No.57, as under:

"The position that emer