Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1209/2008 of SATTENAPALLI PRAKASH @ PRAKASH RAO, Vs THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD., on 27 November 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. SATTENAPALLI PRAKASH @ PRAKASH RAO,, S/O PREMAIAH, R/O 5TH LINE,
APHC010584152008
IN THE H
(
FRIDAY,THE TW
TWO TH
THE HONOURABL
CRIMINAL R
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. SATTENAPALLI PRA 5TH LINE, VASANTHA
1. THE STATE OF AND High Court of A.P..
Counsel for the Petitioner
1. DR SASTRY JANDHY
2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Responde
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTO The Court made the follow
Being aggrieved by learned Courts below again an offence punishable unde Criminal Revision Case has
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER HOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT LE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANT REVISION CASE NO: 1209 OF 2008 KASH @ PRAKASH RAO,, S/O PREMA ARAYAPURAM, GUNTUR, ...PE AND DHRA PRADESH rep. by its Public P ...RESP r: YALA ent: OR wing Order : and dissatisfied with the concurrent nst the order of conviction against the P er Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC, s been preferred.
R TA AIAH, R/O TITIONER Prosecutor, PONDENT findings of etitioner for the instant
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner duly appointed by A.P.High Court Legal Services Committee submitted that the orders passed by the learned Courts below is illegal and improper and suffers illegality. Learned courts below has not properly scanned the evidences on record and passed an order of conviction and sentence against the present Petitioner. She further argued that, had evidences been properly scanned, learned Courts below should not have recorded the order of conviction and prayed for setting aside the order of conviction against the present Petitioner.
3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that during trial several witnesses were placed before learned jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned Magistrate has properly scanned the evidences both oral and documentary and recorded the order of sentence. During appeal, learned Appellate Court has also confirmed the order of conviction of the Petitioner. However, the sentence has been modified. There is no chance to interfere in the order passed by learned Courts below.
4. I perused the entire fact of the prosecution case as well as evidences on record. The fact suggested that the present Petitioner was riding a motor cycle with two pillion riders in a rash and negligent manner, thereby dashed a lady, who succumbed to her injuries, other persons including the pillion riders also sustained grievous injuries. During trial, 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution; several documents were placed. It appears that learned Trial Court has scanned each evidences and also decided their admissibility.
Learned Appellate Court has also decided the issue pending before him and decided on the points for determination.
5. Initially, learned Trial Court has convicted the Accused and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC; for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and further sentences to undergo simple imprisonment for two years to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. However, learned Appellate Court has modified the sentence and reduced to six months, three months and one month respectively for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC.
6. Considering the observation of the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court, I find no justification to interfere.
7. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit.
8. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of the instant Criminal Revision is hereby vacated.
9. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within three (03) weeks from the date of passing of this order to serve out remaining portion of the sentence, failing which, learned Trial Court shall issue Non Bailable Warrant against the Petitioner to comply this order.
10. Since the Petitioner is not present before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon the learned Trial Court for ready reference.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J
Date: 28.11.2025
Note: Issue C.C by 29.11.2025 B/o KK
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1209 OF 2008
28.11.2025
Note: Issue C.C by 29.11.2025 B/o KK