HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1934 & 1969 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two Criminal Revision Cases are preferred by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 & 2 against the judgment, dated 14.09.2011, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2010 by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram. Since both these revisions arose out of same judgment, they are being disposed of together by this common order. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 were prosecuted in C.C.No.79 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC and 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli, convicted the petitioners under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, while acquitting accused No.2 for the offences under Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, vide judgment, dated 07.01.2010. As against the said conviction, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 & 2 filed Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2010 on the file of the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge at Vizianagaaram and the learned Sessions Judge, having gone through both the oral and documentary evidence, while upholding the conviction recorded against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months, vide judgment, dated 14.09.2011. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred this revision. Heard both sides. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioners by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioners. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given concurrent findings, this Court is of the view that merits of the prosecution case and impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. It is represented that the petitioners have to look after their old aged parents and they are the only bread-winners of their families. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2008 and for all these years the petitioners suffered humiliation. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the petitioners. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC as confirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. Consequently, the petitioners- accused Nos.1 & 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in connection with any other case or crime. The fine amount imposed for the said offence by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is not interfered with. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 9th November, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1934 & 1969 of 2011 DATE: 09.11.2011 Crl.R.C.No.1934 of 2011: Between : Kandi Laxmanaarao … Petitioner/ Accused No.1 and State of A.P. ..Respondent and Crl.R.C.No.1969 of 2011: Between : Girada Balakrishna … Petitioner/ Accused No.2 and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1934 & 1969 of 2011 (Disposed of) 9th November, 2011 cbs