Right Of Private Defence Not Available To Aggressors Who Create Situations Of Peril: Allahabad High Court National Security Concerns Outweigh Right To Bail In Espionage Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Relief To Navy Sailor Accused Of Spying For Pakistan Wives Are Not Deemed Maids, Marriage Is A Partnership Of Equals: Bombay High Court Rejects Household Chores As Ground For Cruelty Divorce Economic Offences Affect Financial Fabric Of Society; Custodial Interrogation May Be Necessary: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Anil Tuteja's Bail In Mahadev App Case Municipalities Are 'Persons' Under WB Highways Act; Can't Build On PWD Land Without Permission: Calcutta High Court Sale Of Secured Asset At Reserve Price Requires Borrower’s Consent; Authorised Officer Cannot Confirm Sale Unilaterally: Andhra Pradesh High Court Procedural Safeguards Mandatory Even In National Security Cases: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Over Non-Supply Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Compassionate Appointment Not A Ladder For Career Growth; Second Claim For Higher Post Not Permissible: Allahabad High Court High Court Can't Invoke Inherent Powers To Allow 'Backdoor Entry' For Second Revision Unless Gross Injustice Is Established: Delhi High Court Court Cannot Presume Unsound Mind Merely Because Of Hearing & Speech Disability; Inquiry Under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act: Technical Omission In Complaint Filed By POA Holder Cured If Original Complainant Testifies During Trial; Kerala High Court Direct Evidence Of Sexual Intercourse Not Always Possible; Circumstantial Evidence Of Proximity Sufficient To Prove Adultery: Madras High Court 21 Years Service Is Not Temporary: Orissa HC Directs Regularization Of Drivers, Says State Can’t Exploit Workers Through Perennial 'Ad-Hocism' Reinstatement Not Automatic For Section 25-F ID Act Violations; Punjab & Haryana HC Awards ₹1 Lakh Per Year Compensation To Superannuated Workman Section 82 CrPC Requirements Mandatory; Order Declaring Person Proclaimed Vitiated If Fresh Proclamation Not Issued Upon Adjournment: Punjab & Haryana HC Stay On Blacklisting Order Does Not Efface Underlying Fact; Bidder Must Make Candid Disclosure: Delhi 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