THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.280 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 08.02.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Court, Nalgonda whereby and whereunder the order of the conviction and sentence dated 19.4.2003 in C.C.No.259 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramannapet, was confirmed. 2. On 5.1.1999 at about 9.00 am, the petitioner-accused drove Jeep bearing No.AP- 36-T 9950 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and while overtaking a lorry, dashed against Tempo bearing No.TNJ- 3400 coming in the opposite direction causing the death of five passengers in the Jeeep and also caused injuries to other passengers and that a case in Crime No.186 of 1999 was registered by Choutuppal Police Station against the petitioner-accused under Sections 304-A and 337 and 338 IPC. 3. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.24 in support of its case. Whereas no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 4. Taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material brought on record, the trial court found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offences under sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two months. 5. It is the case of the petitioner-accused that at the time of the accident he was not at the steering of the crime vehicle and that some one else was driving the vehicle and this fact was not taken note of by both the courts below. However, a perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in general and PWs 1 to 5 the complainant, eye witnesses and the injured witnesses in particular, coupled with Exs.P.16 to P.22 goes to prove clinchingly that he was at the steering and the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by the petitioner causing the death of five inmates of the jeep and also causing injuries to other inmates. 6. Further, the case of the petitioner-accused is that he was not identified by independent witnesses and that he was falsely implicated for the sake of claiming compensation from the Insurance Company. However, the evidence of PWs 1, 3, and 5 discloses that they identified the accused. Though a suggestion was put to them to the contrary in their cross-examination, they denied it. Therefore, there is evidence on record that he was identified by the said witnesses. When the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilty of the accused by examining number of witnesses and marking number of documents and the said material clinchingly prove the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the petitioner-accused was falsely implicated in order to facilitate the L.Rs of the deceased and the injured in the accident to claim compensation. 7 In the above circumstances, the first appellate court does not appear to have committed any error or irregularity in confirming the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 304 –A, 338 IPC and modifying the sentence under Section 337 IPC. 8. However, at this stage, the leaned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that the petitioner-accused is the only bred winner for his family consisting of aged parents, minor children and wife, and as such by taking a lenient view the sentence may be reduced. 9. Taking into consideration, the pleas raised by the petitioner and the material on record and also the fact that the appellate Court has already modified and reduced the sentence, this Court is convinced that the sentence can not be further reduced as it appears to be reasonable. This Court is also convinced that the impugned Judgment of the appellate Court does not suffer from any error or irregularity and the same is sustainable. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 18-12-2009 Stp