THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2089 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 14.12.2004 made in Crl.A.No.145 of 2002 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-III), Khammam. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 8.2.1999 at 12.30 hours the complainant viz., V. China Kotaiah gave a written report stating that on 8.2.1999 in the morning at 9.30 hours, while he along with his wife V. Pothamma, V. Nageswara Rao, P. Bullaiah, V. Babu Rao was proceeding by walk on the left side of the road to collect bamboo sticks in the forest and after crossing Gandhimutyalamma temple, the tractor bearing No.ATK 9574 and trailor bearing No.ATK 9575, driven by the petitioner-accused in a rash and negligent manner, came behind with a load of water tank with high speed resulting the trailor turned turtle to left side exactly on the wife of the complainant causing death. V. Babu Rao and P. Bullaiah were taken to the Government Hospital, Sathupalli for treatment by P. Gangamma and V. Veeraswamy. On the basis of the said report, a case in Cr.No.15 of 1999 was registered against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 304-A and 337 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.179 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC and Section 134(a) (b) r/w 187 of the M.V.Act. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused not guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC and Section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, but however, found him guilty for the offence under section 338 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.145 of 2002 before the IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-III), Khammam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 338 IPC, but reduced the sentence of four months S.I. to three months S.I., while maintaining the sentence of fine. 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 four days. 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 1999 and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of four days, 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 338 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under section 338 IPC imposed by the lower appellate Court on the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the sentence of fine. 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.2089 of 2004 10.3.2011