THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2093 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 14.12.2004 made in Crl.A.No.163 of 2003 by the Sessions Judge (IV Additional Sessions Judge), Ongole. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The petitioner-accused is the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP02 V 1111. On 1.1.2000, the defacto-complainant-Polam Jalaiah (P.W.1), Palaparthi Mohanrao (deceased), Katta Subbarao (deceased), Peram Sivarao (P.W.8) boarded the said lorry to go to Singarayakonda. The petitioner-accused drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner and hit the lorry bearing No.AP 7 U 5738 at about 11 a.m. near Seetharamapuram Kostalu. The said Katta Subarao died on the spot. Palaparthi Mohanrao died in Government Hospital. The defacto- complainant-P.W.1 sustained fractures to right hand and left leg. On the report given by P.W.1, a case in Crime No.1 of 2000 was registered for the offence under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.206 of 2000. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence under Section 337,338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of thirty days for the offence under section 304-A IPC; sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days under Section 338 IPC; and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.250/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence under section 337 IPC. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.163 of 2003 before the Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed on the petitioner-accused by the trial Court. 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 one week. 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 2000 and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of one week, 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 Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under section 304--A IPC imposed by the Courts below on the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the sentences of fine for the offence under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC. 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.2093 of 2004 10.3.2011