HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.341 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-II), Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.204 of 2002 dated 18.11.2003, confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., imposed against the revision petitioner- accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal (FAC), Suryapet, in C.C.No.1749 of 2000 dated 11.10.2002. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.1 lodged a complaint with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Suryapet (Rural) Police Station alleging that on 22.05.2000 at about 13.30 hours while PW.2, wife of PW.1, was attending coolie work in the nursery with her son aged 6 years, a tractor with trailor, which had been carrying water tanker to pour water to the trees in the nursery, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner while pouring water to the trees had applied sudden brakes, due to which, the trailor turned turtled and the water tanker fell upon the son of PW.1 and, as a result, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.1749 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal (FAC), Suryapet. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (FAC), Nalgonda, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference and submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody on the date of dismissal of the appeal, i.e. 18.11.2003, and since then he was in jail till he was granted bail by this Court on 26.02.2004 and, therefore, requests that a lenient view may be taken by this Court. From the record, it is clear that the Criminal Appeal was dismissed on 18.11.2003 and, immediately, the petitioner was taken into custody. As the alleged offence took place in the year 2000 and the petitioner was in jail for more than three months, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence to that of the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal, Suryapet, in C.C.No.1749 of 2000 and as affirmed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2003, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. The revision petitioner- accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:07.12.2010 usd