HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1408 OF 2004 Date: 13-07-2011 Between: Biyyani Srinivas Reddy. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant/ Accused. Versus The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1408 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- Accused against judgment, dated 12-08-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2003 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak at Siddipet. 2. The Petitioner (for short, ‘the Accused’) was prosecuted in C.C. No.35 of 2000 for offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel, Medak District convicted the Accused for offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for three months vide judgment, dated 29-10-2003. 3. As against the said conviction and sentences, the accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2003 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak at Siddipet and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, having gone through both oral and documentary evidence adduced, dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court vide judgment, dated 12-08-2004 and challenging the same, the Accused has preferred this Revision. 4. Even though the matter is posted to day under the caption ‘for orders’, no representation is made on behalf of the accused. 5. It is pleaded in the Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter and arrived at incorrect conclusions and in fact the evidence of PW.2 not corroborated with the evidence of PW.3 and PW.3 did not speak about the presence of PW.2 at the time of the incident and therefore the Courts below should have rejected the evidence of PW.2 and ultimately the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused are liable to be set allowing the Criminal Revision Case. 6. Now the points for consideration are : 1) Whether the prosecution placed sufficient evidence with regards to the alleged incident? 2) Whether the Courts below properly examined the matter and the conviction and sentences imposed by the Courts below are sustainable are not? 7. Point No.1: PW.2 deposed that he was going along with the deceased on the road and then one auto came behind and dashed against the deceased and he identified the driver of the vehicle and also deposed that PW.3 was coming behind him at the time of accident. 8. PW.3 deposed that he did not observe the driver of the vehicle. Further, he also deposed in his cross-examination that at the time of accident, himself and the deceased were only present, whereas he did not speak about the presence of PW.2. 9. There is no dispute about the other aspects of the case and hence the same aspects need not be considered here. PW.2 gave cogent and convincing evidence about the accident and the contents of Ex.P2 report which agree with his evidence. It is important that he deposed to the effect that he was proceeding along with the deceased when the accident took place and PW.3 came behind. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve his evidence and accordingly it is accepted to be true and correct. Further, because of lapse of time the said discrepancy might have taken place in the evidence of PW.3, which in the facts and circumstances of the case need not be taken seriously. 10. Therefore, the prosecution established the allegations levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the Courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 11. However with regards to the question of sentence it is important that the offence took place in the year 2000, following which, the accused might have suffered a lot losing his valuable part of life and expenditure. Considering all the factors, I feel that it is reasonable to show some mercy upon the accused and reduce the sentence of imprisonment to three months while keeping the fine clause in tact. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 13th July, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 197 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1408 OF 2004 July, 13, 2011 DSH