Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

"Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction in Rash Driving Case: 'Rash and Negligent Act of the Accused Led to Tragic Accident'

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice A.V Ravindra Babu, upheld the conviction of G. Somasekhar Reddy for causing death due to rash and negligent driving. The judgment, delivered on 22nd February 2024, dismissed the Criminal Revision Case No. 378 of 2012, confirming the earlier conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts.

The case stemmed from a tragic incident that occurred on November 29, 2006, involving an overloaded diesel auto, driven by the petitioner, G. Somasekhar Reddy. The vehicle, carrying more passengers than its capacity, turned turtle due to the petitioner's rash driving, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to several others.

In his verdict, Justice A.V Ravindra Babu observed, "The evidence on record goes to conclude that it was only on account of rash and negligent act of the accused, the accident occurred, resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to others." This statement underscores the court's firm stance on the responsibilities of vehicle drivers and the grave consequences of negligence.

During the trial, the prosecution presented substantial evidence, including testimonies from injured passengers, which unequivocally identified Reddy as the driver and established his culpability. The court noted that the accused's version of events during the 313 Cr.P.C examination was an afterthought, lacking credibility.

Justice Babu's judgment emphasized the importance of road safety and the dire consequences of flouting traffic rules. "He had knowledge that if he overloads the auto with such heavy passengers, there would be every possibility for happening of untoward incidents," Justice Babu noted, highlighting the accused's awareness of the potential risks involved in his actions.

The court's decision reaffirms the legal tenet that drivers hold a significant responsibility for the safety of their passengers and others on the road. By upholding the conviction under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, the judgment serves as a stern reminder of the legal repercussions of negligent driving.

The petitioner's Criminal Revision Case against the concurrent findings of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, was thus conclusively dismissed. The Registry was directed to take necessary steps to carry out the remaining sentence imposed on Reddy.

This ruling has significant implications for road safety and legal accountability in India, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law in matters of public safety.

 

Date of Decision: 22-02-2024

SOMASEKHAR REDDY VS THE STATE OF A P

Latest Legal News