HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL.R.C.NO.512 OF 2005 Dt.8.4.2010 Between: Md. Aleem .. Revision petitioner And The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL.R.C.NO.512 OF 2005 ORDER: 1. This criminal revision case is filed assailing the impugned judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in Crl.A.No.25 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the appeal was partly allowed by reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year passed by the trial court i.e., the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, to simple imprisonment for six months while confirming the fine amount imposed by the trial court of Rs.500/- under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. 2. That, on 29.11.2000 at 7.30 a.m., all the injured persons numbering 15 as well as the deceased were travelling by a jeep bearing No.MH-34-6350 to go to Pippalkoti Village of Maharastra. The said jeep was driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the revision petitioner accused on NH 7 near Chandati village dashed against the cycle and to a tree as a result thereof 15 inmates thereof sustained multiple injuries while one passenger succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Government Head Quarters Hospital, Adilabad. 3. That, a case in Crime No.97 of 2000 was registered by the Adilabad Rural Police Station under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC as well as under Sections 3/181 and 130/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On the basis of the complaint Ex.P-1 preferred by P.W.1, who is the brother of one of the injured (P.W.2), a charge sheet was laid against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-20. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 5. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 to 12, the trial court found the revision petitioner accused guilty for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated in para 1 supra. That, on finding the revision petitioner accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 3/181 and 130/177 of Motor Vehicles Act, the trial court acquitted him of the said charges. 6. However, the lower appellate court by its judgment, dated 21.3.2005, in Crl.A.No.25 of 2004 was pleased to reduce the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year passed by the trial court to simple imprisonment for six months considering the age of the revision petitioner accused and other attendant circumstances while confirming the fine amount imposed by the trial court. 7. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner accused that on finding the cyclist moving on the road ahead of the jeep while proceeding at normal speed, sensing the danger of accident, he tried to swerve his jeep in order to save the cyclist, however, in the process inevitable the jeep had dashed against the tree by the side of the road which was unavoidable and unintentional. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner accused has raised the self-same contentions that were raised before the trial court as well as lower appellate court. 9. Having regard to the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly P.Ws.2 and 4 to 12, who are inmates of the ill-fated jeep, their evidence corroborate each other’s evidence with regard to rash and negligence driving of the accused. P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.12 were cross-examined, but nothing was elicited. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the appreciation of the evidence by both the courts below, this Court is of the view that as the lower appellate court by its impugned judgment has already reduced the sentence imposed by the trial court by taking lenient view, no further lenient view is possible and the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate court does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise, warranting interference from this revisional Court in any manner. 10. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J. 8.4.2010 kpr