THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.373 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein was tried by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku in C.C.No.360 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-18 were exhibited. On behalf of the accused, none was examined nor any documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, by his judgment, dated, 08.09.2009, found the accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to a pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The said judgment was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2009 before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, who by his judgment, dated 26.10.2010, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner-accused by the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused being driver of an auto bearing No.AP 37 W 2857, was going from Jangareddygudem to Penugonda via Tadepalligudem and Marteru, and that, when the said auto reached near Vinayaka temple at Velagaleru village of Penumantra Mandal, he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No.AP 26/U 0837, resulting in the instant death of the deceased. Later, the accused himself went to Penumantra Police Station and gave a statement about the said accident to the police, which was registered as a case and during the course of investigation, after completing all the formalities like preparing the rough sketch of scene of offence, recording the statements of the witnesses, etc., the charge sheet was filed. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the accused has been in jail for a period of about three months. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court looked into the record. From the record, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 26.10.2010 and immediately, the petitioner was taken into custody and as of today, he is lodged in jail for about three months. Further, as the sentence imposed on the petitioner by both the Courts below is one year and the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of about three months, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. As the petitioner is in jail, the Office is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the jail authorities and the jail authorities shall release the petitioner forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other crime. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 25th January 2011 dr