THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.965 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment, dated 30.3.2011 made by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in Crl.A.No.70 of 2010 confirming the judgment dated 26.7.2010 made in C.C.No.390 of 2009 by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Adilabad. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 1.6.2008 at about 10 a.m., while the deceased-father of the defacto-complainant was going to Sangvi village in a jeep bearing No.AP1C-2755 from his Pathaguda village in order to purchase Kirana provisions, the driver of the said jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the break, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the road from the jeep and thereby sustained head injury and also sustained injuries on the other parts of the body and subsequently, died at about 1.15 P.M. while he was undergoing treatment in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Adilabad. On the report given by the defacto-complainant, P.w.7 registered a case against the petitioner-accused. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Adilabad as C.C.No.390 of 2009. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo S.I. for a period of one month. The said judgment was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.70 of 2010 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 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 having regard to the fact that the petitioner was taken into custody on the date of the judgment in the Criminal Appeal and since then, he has been in jail, a lenient view may be taken. Heard and perused the material available on record. 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 judgments of the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the accused is wandering around the Courts since 2008 and in view of the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for one week, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Courts below for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C imposed against the petitioner herein by the Courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except to the above modification, in all other aspects the revision is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 7th April, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.965 of 2011 7.4.2011