THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2100 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 18.11.2004 made in Crl.A.No.56 of 2002 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC III), Khammam, confirming the judgment of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, dated 13.5.2002 in C.C.No.338 of 2000. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 24.1.2000 in the morning hours, P.W.1-P. Veerswamy and the deceased went to Raghunadapalem to their relatives’ house in the auto bearing No.AP 20T 3200 of the accused and in the night, they returned to Khammam in the same auto along with P.W.4. When the auto was proceeding to Khammam-Yellandu B.T. Road, near Ballepalli bus stage, the accused drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a boulder due to which, the auto turned turtle as a result the deceased fell underneath the auto and sustained fatal injuries. P.W.4 shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Khammam. The injured succumbed to the injuries on 24.1.2000. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1 on 25.1.2000, a case in Cr.No.12 of 2000 was registered against the petitioner- accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.338 of 2000. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.56 of 2002 before the IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC.III), Khammam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction modified the sentence of six months R.I. to four months. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of nearly one month. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the conviction recorded by the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been wandering around the Courts since 2000 and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of nearly one month, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under section 304-A IPC imposed by the lower appellate Court on the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 10th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2100 of 2004 10.3.2011