MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"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