THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1358 of 2004 Date: 01.7.2010 Between: Islavath Sreenu. …petitioner/accused And 1. The State of A.P rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ………Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1358 of 2004 JUDGEMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 29.7.2004 passed in Crl.A.No.86 of 2002 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of the accused-Islavath Sreenu for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six months to four months passed in C.C.No.270 of 2001 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:- The petitioner is a driver of the lorry bearing No.AIW 1919. On 19.11.2000, at about 6.30 A.M. He drew the lorry in a rash and negligent manner on NH.9 road, Gollapudi Village and as a result, the lorry dashed against Gogineni Rathaiah, who was just crossing the road from south to north. Thereby Rathaiah met with instantaneous death. P.W.1 G.Seetharamaiah, who is son of Rathaiah, presented a report before the Station House Officer, Law and Order, I Town Police Station, Vijayawada. P.W.10- Abdul Sammad, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Law & Order, I Town Police Station, Vijayawada received the report, which has been exhibited as Ex.P1, and registered a case in Crime No.523 of 2000 and issued Ex.P6-First Information Report. P.W.11 J.S.R.Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Law & Order, I Town Police Station, Vijayawada took up the investigation, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene in the presence of P.W.7-A.Vykunta Rao. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch of the scene. Ex.P2 is the observation report. After inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. P.W.8-Dr.B.Raju held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P4- postmortem report opining that the deceased died due to crush injuries. The accused surrendered himself before P.W.11 who affected his arrest and sent him for remand. After completing investigation, P.W.11 laid a charge sheet in the Court of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.270 of 2001. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing the copies of the documents, the learned Magistrate examined the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C putting the substance of accusations leveled against him, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and proved 8 documents. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month by a judgment dated 19.6.2002. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal.No.86 of 2002 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on re-appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC does not warrant interference. However, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six months to four months while maintaining fine of Rs.1,000/- , by a judgment dated 29.7.2004. Hence, this revision. 3. While admitting the revision, a show cause notice has been directed to be issued to the petitioner as to why the sentence imposed against him by the Court below shall not be enhanced. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- accused and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 5. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the evidence of P.W.1, who claims to have witnessed the incident is no other than the son of the deceased, and, therefore, he has to be categorized as interested witness and in which case no credence can be given to his evidence. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is the only bread winner of the family comprising of aged mother and wife, and, therefore, the appellate Court has proceeded to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from six months to four months and the same is not required to be enhanced. 6. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. The incident occurred in front of the tea stall of P.W.1 and therefore, P.W.1 is a natural witness to the incident. He categorically stated that the lorry bearing No.AIW 1919 came in high speed on a wrong side, dashed the deceased and ran over him. The rough sketch, which has been exhibited as Ex.P7, indicates that the crime lorry came on the wrong side of the road and dashed the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 is amply corroborated by the rough sketch and the scene of offence of panchanama, which have been exhibited as Ex.P7 and Ex.P2 respectively. The accused himself surrendered before the police on 20.11.2000 and claimed as the driver of the crime vehicle. P.W.9 exhibited the vehicle on 20.11.2000 and found no mechanical defects in the vehicle. PWs.3, 5 & 6 deposed that the driver of the crime vehicle ran away from the scene after the incident. The evidence brought on record clearly established that the petitioner-accused drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased causing his instantaneous death. The petitioner–accused pleaded before the trial Court with regard to the quantum of sentence that he is the only bread-winner of the family comprising himself and his wife. Keeping in view this fact, the appellate Court exercised its discretion and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six months to four months. The discretion powers exercised by the appellate Court does not warrant interference. 7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioner-accused shall stand cancelled. The petitioner shall surrender himself before the trial Court for serving out balance sentence of imprisonment as modified by the appellate Court. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:01.7.2010 mrb