Statutory Embargo Under MCOCA Cannot Eclipse Right Against Prolonged Incarceration Under Article 21: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Sukesh Chandra Shekhar’s Associate Family Court Must Declare Marital Status Based On Extra-Judicial Divorce Even If Undisputed By Parties: Allahabad High Court State Cannot Usurp Private Land For Public Road Without Compensation; Financial Burden No Ground To Evade Acquisition: Bombay High Court Vehicle Seized For Transporting Minerals Without Permit Must Be Released On Payment Of Penalty; Retention Serves No Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Development Agreements Fall Under 'Commercial Disputes'; Market Value Of Property Determines 'Specified Value' Under CC Act: Calcutta High Court Tenant Cannot Retain Possession Based On Alleged Oral Sale Agreement & Cash Payments Without Written Registered Document: Delhi High Court Consent Decree In Specific Performance Suit Is Not A Mandatory Injunction; Limitation For Execution Is 12 Years Under Article 136: Gujarat High Court Fairness Not A One-Way Street; Habitual Defaulters Cannot Use Procedural Irregularities To Obstruct Recovery Under Section 29 SFC Act: Supreme Court Even On Lower Threshold Of 'Reasonable Cause', Delay In Filing Additional Docs Can't Be Condoned Without Justification: Supreme Court Commercial Suits: Supreme Court Rejects 'Piecemeal Approach' For Filing Additional Documents, Says Timelines Must Be Strictly Followed Customary Adoption Of 'Ghardamad' Must Be Strictly Proved; Property Devolves Upon Nearest Male Agnate In Absence Of Male Heir: Supreme Court 'Knowledge' Under Section 19 POCSO Not Limited To Direct Senses; Victim’s Credible Statement Sufficient To Trigger Reporting Duty: Supreme Court School Authorities Must Report POCSO Offence Immediately On Receiving Credible Info; Can't Conduct Own 'Verification': Supreme Court Amalgamation Of Bank Under Statutory Scheme Without Landlord's Consent Ground For Eviction; Involuntary Transfer No Defence: Supreme Court Arbitration Clause In MOU Does Not Bar Criminal Prosecution If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offense: Telangana High Court SFIO Complaints Under Companies Act Don't Require Pre-Cognizance Hearing Of Accused Under Section 223 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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