IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWELVETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 473 OF 2005 Between: Sara Apparao … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor The court made the following : order …. Follows 2nd page THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4 7 3 OF 2005 ORDER : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Srikakulam, dated 02-3-2005 in Crl.Appeal No. 82 of 2001, confirming the conviction and reducing the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of one year to six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under section 304-A of IPC, as inflicted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Itchapuram in CC.No.93 of 1999. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC section 3 read with 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 304 (A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Further found guilty for the offence under section 3 read with 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The petitione was further found guilty for the offence under section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. On appeal, the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, whereby and whereunder the conviction inflicted by the learned Magistrate was confirmed but reduced the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of one year to six months Rigorous Imprisonment. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed mercy of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State. This Court perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge is hereby confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment inflicted is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the fine amount paid by the petitioner shall remain unaltered. 6. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 12-11-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 4 7 3 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 21 Date: 12-11-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L