“Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial Forgery Of ACR Is No Part Of Official Duty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against IFS Officer Sole Eye-Witness Not Wholly Reliable, Conviction Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused in Alleged Witchcraft Double Murder Case Functional Disability, Not Mere Physical Percentage, Determines Compensation: Kerala High Court Remands Employees’ Compensation Case for Medical Board Assessment Conviction Cannot Rest On Fictitious Memorandums – When Investigation Is Tainted, Benefit Of Doubt Must Follow: MP High Court Legal Objection Cannot Be Sprung in Second Appeal: P&H High Court Draws Sharp Line Between ‘Legal Plea’ and ‘Legal Objection’ When Foundational Facts Are Seriously Disputed, Writ Court Ought Not To Undertake A Fact-Finding Exercise: Kerala High Court Compliance Affidavits Are Nothing But Admission of Disobedience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Puts Chief Secretaries and DGPs in Dock Over Arnesh Kumar Violations Husband’s Salary Slips Are Personal Information: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Disclosure Under RTI

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