THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No.207 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 4.2.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.194 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur whereby and whereunder the order of conviction and sentence dated 4.5.2004 in C.C.No.113 of 2003 on the file of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, was confirmed. 2. On 21.2.2003 lorry A.P. 7V 1660 was proceeding from Narasaraopet with paddy load to Penuguduru of East Godavari District. At about 8.00 p.m. it reached near Nagarjuna University main gate. At that time the deceased Chukka Peter Paul was going ahead on his scooter AIK 3715. Then the lorry came at high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (revision petitioner) and dashed against the deceased causing multiple injuries. The accident was witnessed by PWs 2 to 6. PW.11-Sub Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station recorded the statement of PW.1 under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.24 /2003 and issued Ex.P.7 FIR under Section 338 IPC. Later on receipt of death intimation from St.Joseph’s hospital, Guntur on 4.4.2003 at 6.00 p.m., provision of law was altered to Section 304-A IPC and issued Ex.P.10 altered FIR. After investigation PW.11 laid charge sheet. 3. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 in support of its case, whereas no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 4. Taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material brought on record, the trial court found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Challenging the same, this revision is filed. 5. It is the case of the petitioner-accused that PWs 2 and 3, who were examined as eye witnesses to the accident, did not support the case of the prosecution on the aspect of his identity and involvement in the alleged accident. PW.4 deposed that due to darkness he had not seen the driver of the vehicle and therefore he could not identify the driver. PW.5 identified the accused only in the court and his evidence cannot be looked into. As such, it is contended that there is no independent evidence with regard to identification of the accused. However, a perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the evidence of PW 2- Watchman, PW.3- Sweeper and PW.4 goes to show that at the time of accident the deceased was coming on his scooter and was turning towards the University and at that time one lorry came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. That however, they could not identify the driver of the lorry. At the time of accident, PW.5 –Police constable was present at the Check Post on duty. He witnessed the accident and identified the driver of the lorry. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated cannot be accepted. 6. In the above circumstances, the first appellate court does not appear to have committed any error or irregularity in confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the petitioner- accused for the offence under Section 304 –A IPC 7. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner- accused submitted that the petitioner-accused is the only bred winner for his family consisting of three daughters and old age parents and as such by taking a lenient view the sentence may be reduced. 8. Taking into consideration the said fact and also having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2003 and also having regard to the fact that PWs 2,3 and 4 did not identify the petitioner- accused, this court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment may be modified. As such, the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year passed by the trial court as confirmed by the first appellate court is modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for six months while maintaining the conviction and fine. 9. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, disposed of. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -06-2010 Stp