Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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