IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1922 OF 2003 Between : Bonthala Subbanna ....PETITIONER A N D The State of A.P. rep. by P.P. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1922 OF 2003 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 1998, on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereunder and whereby, the judgment dated 10.11.1998, in C.C.No.129 of 1994 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, was confirmed. 2. This Court, while admitting the Criminal Revision Case on 26.12.2003, ordered interim suspension, vide Crl.M.P.No.9004 of 2003. “ Interim suspension of the sentence. Petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, Prakasam District”. 3. Sri S.Narendranadh Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had pointed out to the grounds of revision and would maintain that both the Courts below failed to see that the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC had not been made out, since the deaths and injuries of the deceased 1 to 8 was not due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also would maintain that the Courts below failed to see that the accident occurred when the lorry was being driven on the road margin to give way to A.P.S.R.T.C. bus and in that process, there was slight tilt of the lorry to one side and the persons who were sitting on the top of the cement load of the lorry fell down and due to fall of cement bags on them, the deceased succumbed to injuries; that the Courts below failed to observed that investigation was not conducted properly; that the Observation Report and the photographs were not marked as a result of which, the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right; that the courts below failed to see that speed of the lorry is not relevant fact on account of the sole reason that there was rash and negligent driving of the lorry at any rate; and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Courts below erred in appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, the Criminal Revision Case has to be allowed. 5. On contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that both the Courts below appreciated the evidence available on record in detail and arrived at correct conclusion; in the light of the same, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court needs no interference by this Court. Heard the counsel on record. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel on record, the point that arise for consideration by this court in this revision is whether the offences recorded by trial Court and which were confirmed by the lower appellate Court are to be confirmed in the light of the evidence available on record. 7. The present Criminal Revision Petition is filed, challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2003 made in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 1998, by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereunder and whereby, the judgment dated 10.11.1998, made in C.C.No.129 of 1994 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, was confirmed. 8. The trial Court examined P.Ws 1 to 17 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.25. Ultimately, the trial Court, after appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 and 304-A IPC and accordingly convicted the accused. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner / accused is having his surviving parents and children as dependents, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. The trial Court also ordered that said sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone, if any, shall be given set of. The trial Court further directed that the unmarked property, if any, be destroyed after the period of limitation for appeal. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner / accused carried the matter by way of filing an appeal before the lower appellate Court, being Criminal Appeal No.137 of 1998, and the lower appellate Court confirmed the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court as petitioner in this Revision. 10. This Court had carefully considered the grounds raised in this Criminal Revision Case and the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and also the learned Additional Public prosecutor. Several submissions were made by the learned counsel on record and factual controversies and concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below basing on the evidence available on record. The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 17 and Exs.P.1 to P.25 had been appreciated in detail and the said offences had been recorded by the trial Court. 12. This Court had also gone through the considerations, which had been formulated by the lower appellate court and the reasons recorded at paragraph No.9 of the judgment. While re-appreciating the evidence and confirming the offences recorded by the trial Court, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that both the Courts below had not committed any error in appreciating of evidence available on record. However, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in the light of the fact that unfortunate incident in question had taken place under peculiar circumstances though it is also equally unfortunate that it had illustrated in certain cases, and further taking into consideration the long lapse of time, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to modify the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by both the Courts below. 13. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC; to rigorous imprisonment for six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, if any, shall be given set of. 14. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner in judgment dated 10.11.1998 made in C.C.No.129 of 1994 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur and which was confirmed by judgment dated 17.12.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 1998 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, is modified to the extent indicated above and the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. __________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J FEBRURY, 24. YVL