HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.53 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned I-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.No.85 of 2003 dated 11.12.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C., imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned II- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.687 of 2001 dated 25.07.2003. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.12.2001 at 9.15 A.M. the water supply tanker lorry bearing No.A.P-16/T- 2787 came to Chilakapeta near Old Railway quarters for distribution of water to the people of locality and at about 9.45 A.M., while one Nekkala Apparao was drawing water from the tap on the rear side of the water tanker lorry, the revision petitioner-accused, who was the driver of the said water tanker lorry, suddenly reversed the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the said Apparao, as a result of which, the said Apparao crushed in between a wall of the railway quarter and the rear portion of the crime vehicle, resulting in injuries and while he was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the said injuries. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 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 of 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 I-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatam, 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. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner-accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned that the alleged offence took place in the year 2001 and almost 9 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner must have repented for what he did and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of more than 41 days as an under trial prisoner and also subsequent to the dismissal of the criminal appeal on 11.12.2003. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-accused. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of Six months imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned II-Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.687 of 2001 and as affirmed by the learned I- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2003, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of 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 not required in any other crime. With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 30-09-2010 Gsn.