THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 28.01.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2003 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada whereby the conviction of sole accused passed by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada by judgment dated 10.04.2003 in C.C.No.25 of 2002 was confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision as under: That on 26.06.2001 at about 11.30 p.m. the deceased was proceeding along with I.T.I. Road on his scooter A.P.16 R 1265, a lorry bearing No. AP 31 U 4177 driven by the revision petitioner in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed coming towards Benz circle N.H.5 dashed against his scooter as a result the deceased fell down and sustained severe head injuries. He was admitted to a local hospital with the assistance of the accused and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries and that the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC and 134(b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked in support of the prosecution case. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 months. 5. The petitioner assailed the said conviction before the first appellate court i.e. Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada as already stated in Para (1) supra. 6. That the learned first appellate court after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record modified the sentence by reducing it to 4 months for the offence under Section 30A IPC while upholding the conviction by judgment dated 28.,1.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2003. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the courts below considered and believed the evidence of PW.1 who was a constable on duty at the place of the accident and who removed the victim to hospital, though none of other witnesses corroborated the evidence of PW.1 in material particulars. He further submitted that PWs 2 to 4 who are examined as eye witnesses to the accident did not support the prosecution case at all as they turned hostile. He also submitted that no identification parade was conducted; that PW.5 is Motor Vehicle Inspector. PW.6 is a Doctor who treated the injured. PW.7 is one of the mediators who stated that Police obtained his signature on Ex.P.5- the scene of offence. PW.8 is one of the Mediators to Ex.p.6 inquest. PW.9 is Photographer. PW.10 is Assistant Sub Inspector who on receipt of death intimation altered the charge under Ex.P.9. PW.11 is Investigating Officer. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first appellate court was not justified in believing the sole testimony of PW.1. 8. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor supported the prosecution case. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, in general, and the evidence of PW.1 in particular, this court is of the view that the first appellate court has not committed any error or irregularity in confirming the conviction while modifying the sentence against the petitioner-accused and as such the impugned judgment of the first appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2003 dated 28.1.2005 does not warrant any interference from this court . 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 11-12-2009 Stp