THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.445 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein was tried by the learned Junior Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddypalli in C.C.No.47 of 2006 for the offence punishable under sections 337, 338 and 304 – A of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19. The trial court, having assessed the said evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. However, no separate sentence is imposed on the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 337 and 338 of IPC. Questioning the said judgment dated 18.09.2009 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2009 and the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa District at Rayachoty vide his judgment dated 10.02.2011 while concurring with the findings given by the trial court dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 31.05.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. P.W.3 the Petitioner being the drive of TATA Sumo bearing No. AP 04 U 8643 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No.KA 03 C 1167 that was parked on the left side of the N.H. 18 road near Ghansedha Darga as a result of which the TATA Suma rammed into the rear side of the said lorry causing death of the deceased by name Harshini and multiple injuries to some others who were traveling in the said TATA Sumo at that time. In that connection a case in Cr.No.54 of 2005 was registered and investigated into by Ramapuram Police and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded there are no merits in this revision and that the judgments of the courts below need no interference, however, requested the court take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 4 In the light of the said submission, this court looked into the record. The alleged offence took place on 31.05.2005. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the Petitioner is only simple imprisonment for a period of six months, but the Petitioner was also imposed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- which he had paid. Further, the petitioner was taken into custody immediately after the appellate court dismissed the appeal on 10.02.2011 and as on today the petitioner is in jail for the last five days. In those circumstances, this court is of the view that a lenient view, in so far as the said sentence imposed on the Petitioner is concerned, can be taken. 5 In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddipalli, Kadapa District in C.C.No.47 of 2006 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC as confirmed by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa District at Rayachoty in Crl.A.No.121 of 2009 is modified and the said sentence 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. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 14th February 2011 Kvsn