Skip to content


Manohar Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1975CriLJ466
AppellantManohar
RespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh
Excerpt:
.....that the motor vehicles inspector's report reveals that the brakes failed and, therefore the learned magistrate should have proceeded with the trial. the accused is a driver and if really he was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and if the accident has occurred on account of sudden failure of the brakes nothing prevented him from stating before 'the court when he was examined under section 251-a before framing of the charges or after framing of the charges. the accused very clearly admitted the facts and stated that those facts were true and correct. the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the sentence imposed by the lower court upon the accused is severe, and1 the fact that there was sudden failure of the brakes must be taken into consideration in imposing..........read with sections 279 and 337 i.p.c. the petitioner was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment by the learned magistrate and no separate sentence was passed for the offence under sections 279 and 337 i.p.c. in view of the sentence passed for the offence under section 304a i. p. c as they were committed in the same course of transaction. the petitioner was convicted as he pleaded guilty of the charges framed against him. against the order of his conviction dated 16th november, 1971, he preferred an appeal before the chief city magistrate-cum-additional sessions judge and district magistrate (judicial) at hyderabad. the learned sessions judge, by his order dated 19th april, 1972 dismissed the appeal and held that the magistrate has not committed any error in following the procedure in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Madhava Rao, J.

1. This is revision case against the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 304A read with Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. The petitioner was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment by the learned Magistrate and no separate sentence was passed for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. in view of the sentence passed for the offence under Section 304A I. P. C as they were committed in the same course of transaction. The petitioner was convicted as he pleaded guilty of the charges framed against him. Against the order of his conviction dated 16th November, 1971, he preferred an appeal before the Chief City Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions Judge and District Magistrate (Judicial) at Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 19th April, 1972 dismissed the appeal and held that the Magistrate has not committed any error in following the procedure in recording the plea of guilt of the accused. Against the said order of the learned Sessions Judge the present revision is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the conviction of the accused on the plea of guilt of the accused is erroneous as the accused has not stated in his own words that he has committed any offence and that he has not stated the elements of the offence while pleading guilty. For this proposition, the decision in State v. Banshi Singh. : AIR1960MP105 was relied on. In that particular case, when the accused was examined under Section 251A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the allegations made against him, viz. on 8-1-1958, But after framing of the charge he pleaded guilty on 11-1-1958. Therefore, the Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 504A I. P C. and sentenced1 him. to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed & revision for the enhancement of the sentence and the Additional Sessions Judge having found the sentence to be manifestly inadequate, recommended the fine to be enhanced to Rs. 100/- and sent the reference to the High Court. In the reference, the learned counsel for the accused there has raised a point that the accused ought not to have been convict- ed when he pleaded guilty and that the accused must be retried. The High Court was pleased to observe as under :-

Such a plea must be recorded as nearly as possible in the very words of the accused so that an appellate or revisional court may determine whether they really amount to an admission of guilty and what is more, whether the lower Court understood the accused correctly. In order that a conviction may be sustained on a plea of guilty, it must appear that the accused admitted in his pleas all the elements of the offence. It demands still greater caution when the accused on an earlier occasion denied the accusation against himself, in the present case accused made a detailed statement before; the Magistrate in which he described the circumstances in which the death occurred

If that statement were believed the accused was entitled to be acquitted. This situation demanded caution on the part of the Magistrate, when the accused pleaded guilty. The learned counsel for the respondent told me that the Police induced the respondent to plead guilty to the charge so that the case might be dropped with a nominal punishment. In the absence of any material before me to support it such an argument is worthless. At any rate, it was the duty of the Magistrate to have applied his mind cautiously and then exercised his discretion, That does not appear to have been done in this case. The recording of the plea of guilty and the judgment seem to have been mechanically done.

Thus, taking this view the High Court was of 'the opinion that there must be a, trial and sent back the case.

3. In the instant case the learned Magistrate has followed the procedure correctly. Under Section 251-A the accused was asked whether he received the documents to which question the accused has answered 'yes'. He put question No. 2 also which is as under :

It is alleged against you as follows:

On 9-11-1971, at 4-30 A. M.. you drove A. P. Y. 1042 a contract (carriage with 42 passengers so rashly or negligently near Kanolaka village on M. Section 18/2 or 18/3 on National Highway that your bus dashed against, D. B. Carts on the road with 'the result one Narala Venkaiah died' due to injuries sustained and Agamaiah and Chandraiah sustained simple injuries and two bullocks died. Hence this case against you u/ss 304A, 427 and 429 I.P.C. Are these facts true and correct?

A. Yes. These facts are true and correct.

Then the accused was asked again the following question:

Q. 'Do you plead guilty to charges under Sections 304A. 337 and 279 I, P. C read lover and explained to you?

A. Yes, I understand. I plead guilty. Read over and explained to the accused who made the above statement and he admitted the same as correct.

Sd. Munsiff Magistrate,

East & North. Hyderabad Dist

Thereafter the Magistrate passed the order in which he stated that:

the accused was furnished copies of all documents. He was heard and examined. He admitted the offence. To charges framed under Sees. 304A, 337 and 279 I.P.C. read over and explained to him. he pleaded guilty. I am satisfied that his admission and plea are voluntary end true and hence acceptable. I. there fore, find him guilty under Sections 304A, 337 and 279 I.P.C. and convict him under Section 251-A Clause 5 Criminal P. C.

Therefore, in this case, it could mat be said that the accused hag not understood the (charges framed, against him and that his conviction was wrong. It is evident from what is stated above that all the facts necessary which go to constitute the offence were stated to the accused and the accused has clearly admitted those facts even before the framing of the charges and also after 'the charges were trained against him and read over and explained to him. Therefore, it could not be said that 'the accused must have repeated all the facts which have been narrated to him while pleading guilty of the offence levelled against him. It also cannot be said that the accused has not understood the implication of admitting the guilt when all the facts were before him and when he has admitted the facts and pleaded guilty. Therefore, this (contention has no substance..

4. The next contention raised by the learned advocate that the Motor Vehicles Inspector's report reveals that the brakes failed and, therefore the learned Magistrate should have proceeded with the trial. The accused is a driver and if really he was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and if the accident has occurred on account of sudden failure of the brakes nothing prevented him from stating before 'the court when he was examined under Section 251-A before framing of the charges or after framing of the charges. Therefore, this Contention need not foe taken into consideration. The further contention raised by learned counsel is that the charge framed is defective. In the charge the words used are 'in rash and negligent manner' and. therefore, the charge could not have been framed as 'rash and negligent'. It ought to have been 'rash or negligent', but not 'rash and negligent'. Therefore, the charge framed is defective and the case deserves to be sent back after framing of the charges, This contention has also no substance. The magistrate while recording evidence asked the accused that he drove the vehicle rashly or negligently and stated the facts which led to the accident. The accused very clearly admitted the facts and stated that those facts were true and correct. Therefore even though the words 'rash and negligent' were used In the charge there is no prejudice caused to 'the accused when the charge was framed against him in that manner and to which ha pleaded guilty. Therefore, this contention also has no force. The learned counsel for the petitioner Stated that the sentence imposed by the lower court upon the accused is severe, and1 the fact that there was sudden failure of the brakes must be taken into consideration in imposing the sentence. It is a fact that the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector discloses that:

The braking system is not working due to failure of air pressure was not at all developing due to leakage in the air pressure system in the pipe line.

On inspection it was found that the braking at the air pressure line at the horn button was given away which was the cause for sudden failure of the brakes for the lack of air pressure.' (This report is evidently not clear).

Apart from the Motor Vehicles Inspector's report it is also a fact that three carts were going in a line and the bus dashed against the first cart which dashed against the cart in front of it and that cart dashed against the third cart, and that the person in the third cart and the two bullocks died. There was no direct impact of the bus with the person who died. Therefore, keeping all these facts in view. I think it just and proper to set aside the sentence imposed upon the petitioner and direct the petitioner 'to pay a fine of Rs. 750/-.

5. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is set aside and he is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 750/-within one month from today. Out of thing amount of Rs. 750/- Rs. 300/- may be paid Ho the heirs of the deceased and Rs. 300/- to the owner of the bullocks died or if the deceased was the owner, to the heirs of the deceased.

6. With the above directions the revision Is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //