IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.R.C. No.1128 OF 2004 Date:23.06.2011 Between: S. Vasantha Reddy .... Petitioner. And: The State of A.P.,, rep., by its P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderbad. ....Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1128 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 29.06.2004 delivered by III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gadwal in Crl.A.No.132 of 2002, modifying the conviction of the trial court convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 338, 337 IPC, to undergo R.I for three months for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and the appellant is further sentenced to undergo three months for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC leaving alone the fine clause intact. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 3.11.2000 at 8.00 a.m., the complainant G. Narasimhulu lodged complaint at Kodandapur P.S., stating that on 2.11.2000 at 8.00 a.m, himself, G. Narsimhulu, Mahadevudu, Janardhan, Subhadramma and others were returning to Dharmawaram from Gadwal in an auto driven by Gokari on N.H.7 in the limits of Dharmavaram and one hired RTC bus bearing registration No.A.P.21/T-9333 driven by the accused came in the same direction while proceeding from Hyderabad to Kurnool, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the rear side portion of the Auto, as a result of which the auto fell into a ditch by the side of road and the in mates of it sustained severe bleeding injuries and all the injured were shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment and the auto driver Gokari and Boya Beesanna who sustained severe injuries died on 3.11.2000 while undergoing treatment. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 21 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.21. Further Ex.D-1 and D-2 were marked and no other evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner whereas the appellate court modified the same for the alleged charges. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition or to modify the sentence as prayed for? It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that P.Ws.1 to 7 and 14 were examined as eye witnesses to the incident but P.Ws.4,5,6 and 7 did not identify the accused as the person concerned at the time of trial and even though P.Ws.1 to 3 stated in their chief examination that they identified the accused as the person who was driving the bus but it was elicited from their cross- examination that they did not state to the concerned police that the accused was the driver of the vehicle in question whereas P.W.14 was not cross-examined about the identification of the accused by reason of which what he deposed in his chief-examination that the accused was the driver of the bus would prevail. Therefore, through the evidence of P.W.14, the identification of the accused is established. Further, therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner was in jail for a period of 13 days after the appellate court delivered the judgment and has pleaded that in case the revision is dismissed, the imprisonment may be reduced to the period of detention already undergone by him. Further, it is a case of 2001 and ever since the petitioner has been wandering around the courts below and in that connection he might have lost his valuable part of life and money and also suffered to a great extent particularly after imposing the conviction and sentence. Hence, it is quite reasonable to reduce the sentence of one year imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC to two months. The conviction and sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 337 IPC shall remain unaltered while keeping the fine amount clause imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC intact. The petitioner is entitled for set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C for the period already undergone by him connecting to this case. Subject to the above observations, the criminal revision case is disposed of. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 23rd June, 2011. GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1128 of 2004 Date:23.06.2011 Gk.