THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.93 of 2006 Date:04-6-2010 Between: Shaik Tajuddin, Chirala, Prakasam District. …………. Petitioner. And State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ……… respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.93 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein is the Accused in C.C.No.170 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, wherein he was convicted for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was further convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. It is also ordered that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the remand period, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the conviction and the sentences imposed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.315 of 2005 before I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal confirming the Judgment of the trial Court except reducing the sentence of imprisonment to six months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Case has been preferred. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 2-4-2003, at about 3-30 P.M, the accused who is a resident of Kummara Bazar, Kollipara village, being the driver of lorry AP 7T 3438, drove the said lorry at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn while plying from Guntur to Kollipara on Guntur- Nandivelugu road near K.M Stone 16/4, and, dashed against the auto bearing No.AP 7X 1968 coming in the opposite direction with a result of which, the auto fell down and P.Ws.1 to 3 and deceased, who were traveling in the said auto, sustained injuries. All the injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Tenali for treatment and the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The Medical Officer sent information to the Police and a case was registered and investigated into. P.W.8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the crime lorry and gave report. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer in this case. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, mainly contended that the evidence of P.W.3, who is an eye witness of the occurrence, cannot be believed since he has not stated anything in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., by P.W.10-the Investigation Officer, but he has deposed before the Court for the first time. But unfortunately, on perusal of the record, it is seen that the P.W.3 was properly contradicted before the trial Court. Hence, the said argument of the learned counsel cannot be taken into account. Then the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 2003 and the petitioner has suffered humiliation for the past seven years and the petitioner has to look after his family and also he has to arrange marriage of his daughter and further submitted that the enhancement of fine amount would meet the ends of justice. Considering the entire facts and the above submissions made by the learned counsel, the conviction imposed on the petitioner by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur is confirmed. As far as the quantum of sentences is concerned, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner for all the offences is set aside. However, the fine amount imposed for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is enhanced to Rs.4,000/- and the default sentence imposed by the lower Court is confirmed. The fine amount and the default sentence imposed by the lower Court for the other offences stands confirmed. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The revision petitioner is directed to pay the said fine amount within four weeks from the date of copy of the order being made ready. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date:04-6-2010 mrb