THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2086 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment, dated 25.11.2004, made by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.No.59 of 2004 confirming the judgment dated 5.4.2004 passed by the VIII Metropolitan Magitrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.155 of 2000. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 10.3.2000 at about 20.30 hours one Sarvasuddi Ramanababu was coming towards Gajuwada from Gollajaggarajupeta on his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 L 7101 and he turned the motor cycle from autonagar road to BHPV Old Gajuwaka NH5 road and when he was passing the road, the accused being the driver of the tractor ADB 2918 and trailer AEK 339, while going towards BHPV side with iron billets load, drove the same and dashed the motor cycle of Ramanababu with front right wheel of the tractor and dragged him along with the motor cycle to a distance and caused his instantaneous death. The petitioner-accused did not stop the vehicle immediately. When Pilla Appalasatyarao and Sandrana Ramarao chased him, he stopped the vehicle at a distance of one furlong from the accident spot. A report was given by Pilla Appala Satyarao to the S.I. of police, Gajuwaka Traffic police station who in turn registered the FIR and investigated into the matter. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.155 of 2000. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said judgment was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.59 of 2004 before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed judgment of the trial Court. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner-accused 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 having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of 25 days. Heard and perused the material available on record. 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 judgment of the appellate Court does not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the offence is of the year 2000 and the petitioner-accused has been wandering around the Courts since 2000, and in view of the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of twenty five days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine amount. 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.2086 of 2004 10.3.2011