"‘No Perversity or Flaw in Conviction’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Guilt in Fatal Negligence Case, But Reduces Sentence from One Year to Six Months Under Section 304-A IPC"
Isabella Mariam
In a judgment delivered on 4 March 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, Single Bench Justice V. Srinivas, reduced the sentence of a convict in a criminal revision case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) from one year to six months of simple imprisonment, while upholding the conviction. The Court, after examining the trial and appellate court findings, recorded that “there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.”
The Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada to serve the remaining sentence.
The petitioner, Vemagiri Raju @ Yesu, was found guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC for causing the death of Karri Ramarao on 21 March 2011. According to the prosecution, at approximately 9:00 p.m. on that day, while the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle in front of the Power Control Office on the outskirts of the 3rd A.P.S.P. at Kakinada, the petitioner, who was driving an auto-rickshaw bearing registration number AP 05 TA 3407 (referred to as “crime auto”), drove in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased's cycle. The deceased fell on the road, sustained severe injuries, and died on the spot.
Based on the report of P.W.1 (Ex.P.1), P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, Sarpavaram Police Station, registered a case under Section 304-A IPC (Cr.No.66 of 2011) and conducted an investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was numbered as C.C.No.87 of 2011 on the file of the Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada.
Following a full-fledged trial, the trial court found the accused guilty, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of ₹10,000. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.358 of 2014 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, which was dismissed on 2 June 2016, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court through Criminal Revision Case No.1352 of 2016, challenging both the findings and sentence.
Before the High Court, the petitioner was represented by Sri A.S.K.S. Bhargav on behalf of Sri N. Subba Rao, and the respondent-State was represented by Miss P. Akhila Naidu along with the Public Prosecutor for Andhra Pradesh.
Justice V. Srinivasa framed the question as “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” The petitioner’s counsel argued that the accident was not due to negligence on the part of the accused and that the prosecution witnesses did not identify the accused as the driver of the crime auto on the date of the incident. It was further contended that no identification parade was conducted by the investigating agency, and the trial and sessions courts failed to properly appreciate the material on record.
The respondent-State, through its counsel, submitted that the testimonies of P.Ws.2 to 4 established rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused, and P.Ws.1 and 7 confirmed that the petitioner was the driver of the crime auto on the day of the incident. It was argued that the evidence of P.W.6 along with Exs.P.3 and P.7 confirmed that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the incident. The State submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by examining P.Ws.1 to 9 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.7.
The Court recorded that “it is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident and involvement of the crime auto.” P.W.2, an eyewitness, testified that “he saw the driver of the crime auto bearing No.AP 5 TA 3407 at the time of accident. He identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle by the date of incident.” Although P.Ws.3 and 4 did not identify the driver, they testified about the rash and negligent manner of driving.
Additionally, the Court noted that P.W.7, the owner of the auto, stated that “on 21.03.2011 one Yesu (accused) took his auto. On 28.03.2011, the said Yesu informed him that his auto met with an accident. On coming to know the said accident, he took the said Yesu to Police Station along with vehicle record and got him surrendered.”
On the contention that no identification parade was conducted, the Court referred to the precedent in Dana Yadav @ Dahu v. State of Bihar, wherein it was held that “if an accused person is already well known to the witnesses, an identification parade would, of course, be only a waste of time.” The Court stated that “if the accused person was identified by the prosecution witnesses before the Court as driver of the crime vehicle by the date of incident, no separate identification parade is required.”
The Court further found no cause to disbelieve the evidence on record and stated, “there is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses and there is no material to disbelieve the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.7.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, observing that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertake in-depth and minutest re-examination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court.”
The Court concluded that “there is no apparent failure on the part of the Courts below in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence.”
Justice V. Srinivas held that “the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that of six (6) months from one year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.” The Court further directed, “the petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada to serve the remaining sentence imposed against him, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner/accused.”
The fine of ₹10,000 imposed by the trial court was left intact, including the default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. The Court also stated, “interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated,” and ordered that miscellaneous applications, if pending, would stand closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the petitioner : N Subba Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent : Public Prosecutor (AP) and Miss P. Akhila Naidu
Case Title: Vemagiri Raju @ Yesu vs. The State of AP Rep PP
Neutral Citation: APHC010680802016
Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No.1352/2016
Bench: Justice V. Srinivas
[Read/Download order]
