THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.271 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner was tried by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur in C.C.No.20 of 1995 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC and under section 3 r/w section 181 and Section 134 (a) & (b) r/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. The trial court having analysed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.150/- in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of twenty days for the offence punishable under section 3 r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.150/- in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of twenty days under each count of the offence under sections 134 (a) & (b) r/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Questioning the said judgment dated 30.12.1999 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2000 and the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) West Godavari at Eluru by his judgment dated 16.02.2004 dismissed the said appeal. Hence this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.02.1994 while the deceased Kappala Danaiah along with P.Ws.1 to 3 were in road laying work, the petitioner being the driver of the tractor and trailer with a water tank on it for watering the road, allowed the deceased Danaiah to travel on drawbar of the tractor and trailer and at that time the petitioner drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which the deceased lost his grip and dropped from the drawbar and fell on the road and sustained injuries. Then the petitioner stopped the vehicle and escaped from the place of offence. Thereafter the deceased was taken to the hospital, but on the way he succumbed to the injuries. In that connection a case in Cr.No.14 of 1994 was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police laid the charge sheet. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but however, requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 5 In the light of the said submission this court looked into the record. The appeal was dismissed on 16.02.2004 and immediately the petitioner was taken into custody and it is only after admission of this revision and granting of bail by this court on 19.02.2004, the petitioner came out of the jail. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of 5 days. As the said sentence imposed by the courts below is only imprisonment for six months, and as the petitioner was in jail for about 5 days and inasmuch as the offence relates to the year 1995 this court takes a lenient view. 6 Accordingly, the said sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. -------------- 10.11.2010 Kvsn