logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 APHC 1718 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Revision Case No. 1209 Of 2008
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Parties : Sattenapalli Prakash @ Prakash Rao Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: DR. Sastry Jandhyala, Legal aid, Advocates. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 28-11-2025
Head Note :-
Indain Penal Code - Sections 337, 338 and 304-A -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC

2. Catch Words:
- Conviction
- Sentence
- Revision

3. Summary:
The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentences imposed for offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304‑A of the IPC, alleging improper appreciation of evidence by the trial and appellate courts. The prosecution contended that the trial magistrate and appellate court had duly examined oral and documentary evidence and confirmed the conviction, merely modifying the sentences. The revising judge examined the record, found that the trial court had properly scanned the evidence and that the appellate court’s modification was appropriate. No merit was found in the petitioner's contentions. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, the earlier suspension of sentence was vacated, and the petitioner was ordered to serve the remaining sentence.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of learned Courts below against the order of conviction against the Petitioner for an offence punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner duly appointed by A.P.High Court Legal Services Committee submitted that the orders passed by the learned Courts below is illegal and improper and suffers illegality. Learned courts below has not properly scanned the evidences on record and passed an order of conviction and sentence against the present Petitioner. She further argued that, had evidences been properly scanned, learned Courts below should not have recorded the order of conviction and prayed for setting aside the order of conviction against the present Petitioner.

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that during trial several witnesses were placed before learned jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned Magistrate has properly scanned the evidences both oral and documentary and recorded the order of sentence. During appeal, learned Appellate Court has also confirmed the order of conviction of the Petitioner. However, the sentence has been modified. There is no chance to interfere in the order passed by learned Courts below.

4. I perused the entire fact of the prosecution case as well as evidences on record. The fact suggested that the present Petitioner was riding a motor cycle with two pillion riders in a rash and negligent manner, thereby dashed a lady, who succumbed to her injuries, other persons including the pillion riders also sustained grievous injuries. During trial, 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution; several documents were placed. It appears that learned Trial Court has scanned each evidences and also decided their admissibility.

                  Learned Appellate Court has also decided the issue pending before him and decided on the points for determination.

5. Initially, learned Trial Court has convicted the Accused and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC; for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and further sentences to undergo simple imprisonment for two years to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. However, learned Appellate Court has modified the sentence and reduced to six months, three months and one month respectively for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC.

6. Considering the observation of the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court, I find no justification to interfere.

7. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit.

8. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of the instant Criminal Revision is hereby vacated.

9. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within three (03) weeks from the date of passing of this order to serve out remaining portion of the sentence, failing which, learned Trial Court shall issue Non Bailable Warrant against the Petitioner to comply this order.

10. Since the Petitioner is not present before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon the learned Trial Court for ready reference.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal