Employees Handling Public Money Expected To Maintain Highest Standards Of Integrity: Telangana High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Bank Manager Over Financial Irregularities No Specific Direction In Writ Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Initiate Contempt Against State For Non-Framing Of Rules 'DNA Report Not Conclusive Proof Of Absence Of Consent': J&K High Court Grants Bail To Accused In POCSO Case After Prosecutrix Turns Hostile Mere Knowledge Is Not A Crime: Karnataka High Court Quashes Charges Against Homestay Owner For Not Reporting Guest's Sexual Assault Bypassing DRT Strongly Deprecated: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Writ Challenging SARFAESI Notices, Reaffirms Bar Under Article 226 Tenant Cannot Induct Stranger And Claim Permission': MP High Court Upholds Eviction Decree Against Subtenant Landlord Must Produce Concrete Evidence To Establish Genuineness Of 'Bonafide Need'; Oral Testimony Not Sufficient: Kerala High Court Cannot Change Rules Of The Game Mid-Way: Calcutta High Court Quashes Refusal To Approve Selection Process Initiated Under 2005 Rules Joint Petitions Seeking Individual Relief Must Pay Court Fees 'Per Petitioner': Bombay High Court 'Body Found Severed In Multiple Pieces Doesn't Conclusively Prove Trespass': Allahabad High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh In Railway Untoward Incident Case POCSO | Cannot Apply 2019 Amendment Retrospectively: Supreme Court Restores Life Imprisonment In Child Rape Case Equivalence Of Pay Scale Doesn't Mean You Can Leapfrog: Supreme Court Restricts Scope Of Absorption For Surplus Employees Supreme Court Raps State Over Illegal Delegation Of Power: 'Statutory Duty Of Government Cannot Be Abdicated To Subordinate Officers' Natural Justice Is Not An Unruly Horse: Supreme Court Overturns HC Order Quashing Teacher's Termination Over Invalid B.Ed. Degree Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order For Failing To Decide Application For Additional Evidence Criminal Proceedings Not A Recovery Mechanism: Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Used As Arm-Twisting Tactic Review Is Not An Appeal: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Where High Court Reheard Case Under Guise Of Review Jurisdiction Filing Lawsuits Is A Statutory Right: Supreme Court Refuses To Term PepsiCo's Infringement Actions Against Farmers As 'Predatory' 'Promise To Marry' Vitiated If Complainant Is Already Married: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Mere Harassment Without Proximate Act Not Enough To Invoke Section 306 IPC: Supreme Court Quashes Abetment To Suicide Case Against Forest Officer Ill-Motivated' FIR: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Under Section 182 IPC For Lack Of Proper Compliance With Section 195 CrPC No Benefit Under MSMED Act If Arbitration Conducted Outside Facilitation Council: Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator NDPS | "Substantial Compliance" With Section 42 Can Bypass Strict Procedural Rigidities: Supreme Court Mere Naming In Suicide Note Not Enough: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge Of Accused In Abetment To Suicide Case Cannot Sleep For 12 Years And Claim Benefits: Supreme Court Rejects Salary Arrear Claims Of 'Fence-Sitters'

Rash Driving, No Drunkenness – AP High Court Tempers Sentence After 18-Year Wait

01 September 2025 12:14 PM

By: sayum


Justice cites ‘balance between justice and proportionality’ while reducing sentence from eight to three months, Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a nuanced verdict in an 18-year-old road accident case, reducing the imprisonment of an auto driver convicted under Section 304A of the IPC from eight months to three months.

The case concerned Tadivalasa Koteswara Rao, who had been found guilty of causing the death of one passenger and injuries to two others in January 2007 after his goods auto overturned on National Highway 43 near Nelivada village, Vizianagaram district.

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, while partly allowing the criminal revision, upheld the conviction recorded by both the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram, and the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, but noted that “punishment must be proportionate to the proven guilt” and that “a sentence should neither be nominal nor excessive.”

The judge reflected that while the act resulted in the “loss of a precious human life,” there was no allegation that the driver was intoxicated or under the influence of any substance. The court observed: “The act was one of rash and negligent driving simpliciter, not one involving inebriation, which would have warranted a stricter and more severe sentence.”

The prosecution’s case had been built largely on the testimony of three injured passengers, who consistently maintained that despite repeated requests to slow down, the driver continued recklessly, causing the vehicle to overturn. The court found “no reason to disbelieve the truthful and trustworthy testimonies of injured witnesses who had no animosity toward the accused.”

However, when weighing the sentencing, the court considered the passage of nearly two decades since the incident, the accused’s status as the sole breadwinner with no prior criminal record, and his age at the time of the accident — around 35 years. Justice Rao remarked: “Considering the nature of the offence, the mitigating circumstances, and the principle of proportionality, a reduced term of three months’ simple imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.”

The remainder of the sentences for other offences under Sections 338 and 337 IPC, and the fine for violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, remain unchanged. The court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court to serve the remaining sentence, warning that failure to do so would invite coercive steps.

With this order, the court has closed the long chapter of a case that began with a midnight journey to the Vizianagaram market — a journey that ended in tragedy for one passenger, and a legal battle spanning 18 years for the driver.

Latest Legal News