HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1687 of 2004 O R D E R: The sole accused was convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The trial court refused to apply the provisions of Sec.360 Cr.P.C., to the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- with appropriate default sentence. The trial court also directed that the accused was entitled to the benefits of Sec.428 Cr.P.C. The sole accused preferred appeal. 2. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction against the accused in the appeal. He reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to a period of six months. There was no order in the appeal relating to fine amount. I consider that the appellate court maintained the fine imposed by the trial court as there was no reference to the reduction or modification of the fine imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the judgments of the trail court and the appellate court, the sole accused preferred the revision. 3. Before the trial court, as many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused/revision petitioner was said to be the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP16W-9584. The deceased Mallula Srinu @ Srinivasarao was the cleaner of the lorry bearing registration No.ATQ- 7387 and PW1 was the driver of the said lorry. 4. The prosecution contended that on the date of the accident i.e, on 16.10.2001, PW-1 stopped the lorry near Polytechnic college, Vatluru. The deceased was cleaning the front glass of the lorry in accordance with the directions of PW-1. In the meanwhile, the accused drove his lorry from Vijayawada side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed lorry of PW-1 from behind. The deceased who was cleaning the glass of the lorry, fell down owing to the impact of hit from behind and sustained serious injuries. He subsequently died at the hospital while undergoing treatment. The accused thus, was guilty of the death of the deceased for the offence u/sec.304-A IPC. PW-1 who was the driver of the stationed lorry, claimed that he did not see the driver of the offending lorry claiming that he was in a hurry to shift the deceased, who was in injured condition, to the hospital. PW2 was the junior paternal uncle to the deceased. PW-3 was a mediator for the observation of the scene of offence. He also acted as mediator for the inquest. PW-4 was a photographer. PW-5 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW-6 was the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who certified that the offending vehicle was not suffering from any mechanical defect. PW- 7 was the Investigating Officer. 5. Baring for PW-1, no one was eye witness for the incident. It is only PW1, who could prove the case. However, PW1 as already pointed out claimed that he did not notice, who was driving the lorry at the time of the accident. 6. Ex-P12 is the trip sheet. The trip sheet bears the name and signature of the driver of the lorry at the time of the accident. Ex.P12 was not specifically proved by the owner of the lorry. 7. Be that as it may, curiously, it is not the case of the accused that he was not the driver of the offending lorry at the time of the accident. It was his case that he was driving the lorry carefully and that the accident did not occur on account of his fault. This can be gathered from the tone and tenor of the defence set up by the accused. Further Ex.P12 does not suffer from rigor of proof for the reason that the accused admitted Ex.P12 to be the trip sheet of the case. 8. Where PW1 was only the eye witness to the accident and where PW1 did not support the prosecution story and claimed that he did not see who was driving the lorry at the time of the accident, the benefit of doubt indeed goes to the accused. At the same time, the trip sheet discloses that the accused was the driver of the offending lorry at the time of the accident. The accused did not deny the trip sheet. It therefore, is for the accused to show that he was not driving the lorry at the time of the accident. All said and done, he was the official driver of the lorry at the time of the accident. The accused failed to show that he was not driving the lorry at the time of the accident. 9. Secondly, although PW1 failed to identify the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, in view of Ex.P12 trip sheep and in view of the admissions of the accused that he was driving the lorry at the time of the accident, I have no hesitation to accept the view of the trial court and the appellate court that the accused was indeed the driver of the offending lorry. From the evidence of PW-6, Motor Vehicles Inspector, PW-7-Investigating Officer and PW-1 driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. ATQ 7387, it is evident that the death of the deceased was on account of the hit by the offending lorry. The logical conclusion is that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the accused. The trial court and the appellate court therefore, are justified in holding that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A IPC. The conviction recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court deserves to be sustained. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial court is confirmed. The revision deserves to be dismissed. 10. Regarding the quantum of punishment imposed against the accused, it may be noticed that the deceased was described to be 32 years old at the time of the accident. The accident occurred in October, 2001. The petitioner would appear to be in jail for about a month in all. Where the offence occurred about 10 years ago, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the imprisonment already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court, however, deserves to be maintained. 11. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is confirmed holding that the accused is found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A IPC. The sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is further modified to sentence of imprisonment already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court together with the default sentence is confirmed. 12. The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, accordingly. _____________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Dt. 24.6.2011 Mjl/*