Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

"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

Similar News