HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.15 OF 2007 ORDER: Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2006 on the file of the Court of V Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Mahabubnagar, the accused filed this revision. By the said judgment, the appellate Court set-aside the conviction and sentence of the accused imposed by the trial Court viz., Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla by awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- to PW.3 payable by the accused. The trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 338 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, one week under Section 337 IPC. 2. The grounds raised in the revision inter alia are that the appellate Court as well as the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material on record in proper perspective; that both the Courts below have not followed the cardinal principles to be adopted while evaluating the circumstantial evidence and that the Investigating Officer is not examined. Moreover, neither the Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined nor the M.V.I. report was filed into the Court and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.8.2000 at about 3.00 p.m., PW.1 along with his family members was travelling by a Matador Van bearing registration No.AP-12 T-8561 to go to Chintakunta of Pangal Mandal of Mahabubnagar District. The Van started from Hyderabad. It was being driven by the accused. When the Van reached outskirts of Pothulamadugu on NH-7, the accused drove the Van at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the Van dashed against the road-side tree and the same resulted in the death of two inmates and injuries to others. 4. Based on the written complaint given by PW.1, Annasagar P.S. registered a case in Crime No.76 of 2000 under Sections 304-A, and 337 IPC, and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid into the Court. Subsequently, the trial Court has framed charges under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC. 5. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13, (PWs 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 are injured) 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. 6. The trial Court taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case as required by law against the accused for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as already stated in Paragraph No.1 supra. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2006 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar. The appellate Court after hearing both sides and after appreciating the evidence and other material on record, partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC. However, the appellate Court has awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to PW.3 along with the fine amount, if any, paid in the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court, the accused has preferred this Criminal Revision Case. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner - accused has raised the self-same pleas as he has raised them in the grounds of revision. Further he contended that non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the Motor Vehicle Inspector and also not filing MVI report into the Court is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments of both the Courts below. 9. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court reveals that since Investigating Officer and the Motor Vehicle Inspector were not examined and since the M.V.I. report was not marked in the trial Court, the appellate Court has allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.1032 of 2000, and with a view to rendering justice, it has ordered payment of Rs.20,000/- to PW.3 as well as the fine amount, if any, paid in the trial Court. The appellate Court has taken a lenient view in setting aside the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner - accused and awarded a meagre amount of Rs.20,000/- along with fine amount, if any, paid in the trial Court to PW.3 as compensation payable by the accused. As such, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this Court. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ B.N. RAO NALLA,J Date: 01-12-2011 Stp