HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.2002 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Eluru, in Crl.A.No.112 of 2004 dated 03.12.2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C., and further sentence of fine of Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. and also further sentence of fine of Rs.250/-, on each count, in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days, on each count, for the offences punishable under Sections 134 (a) and 134 (b) of M.V. Act, imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, in C.C.No.153 of 2003 dated 29.07.2004. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.01.2003 at about 9.30 P.M. on National Highway road, opposite to police guest house near Santhinagar cross-road, Eluru, the revision petitioner-accused drove the R.T.C. bus bearing No. A.P 9Z 8584 at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Hero Honda Motor cycle of P.W.1-defacto complainant, wherein one Padma, wife of P.W.1, was the pillion rider, as a result of which, the said Padma and P.W.1- defacto complainant fell on the road and that the left side front tyre of the crime bus ran over the said Padma and caused her instantaneous death and P.W.1-defacto complainant was also sustained bleeding injuries. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 of I.P.C. and Sections 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of M.V. Act. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 337 of I.P.C. and Sections 134 (a) and (b) of M.V. Act. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner- accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned that the alleged offence took place on 09.01.2003 and almost 8 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner must have repented for what he did and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of one week as an under trial prisoner and also subsequent to the dismissal of the criminal appeal on 03.12.2004. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by modifying the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner- accused, while imposing a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. and also maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against the petitioner by the Courts below for the offences punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. and Sections 134 (a) & (b) of M.V. Act. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. is modified to that of the period already undergone by him. However, the revision petitioner-accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. and also the sentence of fine imposed against the petitioner by the Courts below for the offences punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. and Sections 134 (a) & (b) of M.V. Act. The revision petitioner-accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 29-01-2011 Gsn.