LAWS(APH)-2000-6-75

VANKA NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF A P

Decided On June 13, 2000
VANKA NARASIMHA MURTHY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner assails his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC, and as confirmed by the Appellate Court by its judgment dated 2-4-1999, in Crl. Appeal No.75 of 1997.

(2.) The substance of the accusation was put to the revision petitioner at the time of commencement of the trial, that he was alleged to have been responsible for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC for having driven the milk van in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident and sustaining injuries by the inmates of the van. When he abjured the guilt and denied of having committed the offence, the trial commenced and during the course of trial, nine witnesses were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 were got marked. The plea of the revision petitioner- accused, when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC was that there was a mechanical defect in the vehicle and therefore, the accident was beyond his control.

(3.) Thereupon after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court convicted him for both the offence, after having found him guilty for the said offences and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Since a sentence was inflicted for the aggravated form of offence under Section 338 IPC, no separate sentence had been inflicted for the other offence under Section 337, IPC, although the revision petitioner had been found guilty for the said offence. Having been aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against him, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Vizianagaram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment impugned in the present revision upheld both the conviction and sentence passed against him. The revision petitioner assails the same before this Court.