IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE THIRTYETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 6 8 of 2005 Between: Pedamuttam Narayana … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G. Pedda Babu Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6 8 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the X-Additional District Judge (FTC) Guntur at Narsaraopet dated 14-12-2004 in Crl.A.No.560 of 2001, confirming the judgment dated 05-11-2001 passed in CC.No. 146 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chilkaluripet. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : On 30-1-1997 at about 08:15 a.m., while the deceased Kundari Ananda Babu was crossing the road near Timmapuram opposite to Samykutha Cotton Mill on NH-5 road, Tata Mobile car bearing No.AP7W-1267 driven by the accused came in a rash and negligent manner from Boyapalem and dashed against him, as a result of which, he received severe injuries on his head and legs. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Chilkaluripet. On the statement of the injured, a case in Cr.No.11/1997 for the offence under section 337 IPC was registered and investigated into. The injured was referred to Govt.General Hospital, Guntur, where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day at 10:20 p.m. and after receiving the death intimation the section of law was altered into section 304-A of IPC. The inquest over the dead body of the deceased was held and the panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to injuries received in the accident, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Thereafter, autopsy was conducted over the dead body of the deceased and the doctor who conducted postmortem examination opined that the deceased died due to head injury. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Chilkaluripet inspected the vehicle and opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-5 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced but marked Exs. D1 and D2, which are admissible portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statements. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused denied the same. 6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offences under section 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and pre-trial detention is set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. 7. On appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate were confirmed by the learned X- Additional Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet, in Crl.A.No. 560 of 2001, dated 14-12-2004. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has confined his arguments only in connection with the sentence and submitted that being the offence pertaining to the year 1997, the case was registered in the year 1998 and the petitioner has already undergone two months of pre-trial detention, therefore, he further prayed mercy of this Court. 9. Considering the fact that the offence is pertaining to the year 1997 i.e., after a lapse of more than one decade, the petitioner has been suffering untold hardship to eke out his livelihood and to maintain his family at a subsistence level. 10. Considering the same, the conviction recorded by both the courts below is confirmed and sentence is modified to the period already undergone. 11. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 30-09-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 6 8 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 3 4 Date: 30-09-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L