MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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