HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1515 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal revision Case is filed by the accused Md. Jahangeer assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.100 of 1999 dated 11-08-2004 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar in C.C. No.246 of 1996 dated 26-06-1999 for the offences under Sections 304 & 337 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On 02-06-1996 at about 11-35 AM, while the deceased was going on the scooter bearing No.AP12-5620 along with his wife and their four children, at Kothur railway crossing, accused driving the DCM Van bearing No.APT-3338 in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction, dashed the scooter causing serious injuries to the driver of the scooter and other occupants of the same. As a result, driver of the scooter Mohd. Moulana and his son Mohd. Ismail died in the Government Hospital, Shadnagar and his wife Gousia Begum and another child Rizwana died in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. On a complaint, the police of Kothur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.71 of 1996, investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. 3. For the charges framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC, he pleaded not guilty. 4. To substantiate its case, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B-1 was marked. 5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the incriminating material against him in the evidence of prosecution. 6. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and accordingly convicted him for the same and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the same to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 337 IPC. Challenging the same, accused preferred appeal and the lower Appellate Court dismissed the same confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on him. Aggrieved of the same, this revision is filed by the accused. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 8. The evidence on record shows that the accident has taken place on account of negligence of the driver of the DCM Van, accused. PWs.2, 3 and 4 are eyewitnesses to the accident and they clearly stated that while the deceased were going on the scooter, the accident has taken place as the DCM Van, which was going in the opposite direction to the scooter, dashed the scooter. 9. No doubt, at the time of accident six persons were proceeding on the scooter which is much against the rules and also propriety, as there is every possibility of the scooter driver losing control over the scooter, on account of heavy load. Still, that itself is not sufficient to hold that accused, driver of the DCM Van, is not guilty of the offence as the evidence is very clear that the DCM Van came in the opposite direction to the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter. 10. Now, at this stage of revision, there is no possibility for re-appreciation of the entire evidence. However, still the evidence is consistent and there is nothing to show that appreciation of evidence by the Courts below was perverse or that there is any infirmity. Though four people died in this case, still the learned Magistrate has taken a very lenient view in imposing sentence of just six (6) months. 11. In the circumstances, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below in any manner, as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 24, 2010. PV