THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.191 OF 2006 DT.11.06.2010 Between: Koppada Narayana Murthy …………..Petitioner Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ……………….Respondent. O R D E R: The revision arises against the order of conviction imposed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry in C.C.No.558 of 1999 dated 05.10.2005, which was confirmed by the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) East Godavari at Rajahmundry in Crl.Appeal No.170 of 2005, dated 30.01.2006. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 05.09.1999 at about 2.45 p.m., PW-1 Palika Venkateswararao along with two pillion riders i.e., PW-2 K.Gangadhar and the deceased Samsani Hari Lakshmi was going on a scooter bearing registration No.AP5F 8912 to drop the deceased in RTC bus complex and by the time they came near four road junction at Ramakrishna theatre, the lorry bearing registration No.ABK 9765 being driven by the petitioner/accused in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed without blowing horn, dashed against the said scooter from behind with the left front portion of the lorry resulting in the accident. The motor cyclist PW-1 fell down on the road and the two pillion riders received injuries. PW-1 shifted the injured to Suraksha Emergency Hospital, Rajahmundry for treatment and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. On receipt of Ex.P-6-hospital intimation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Rajahmundry proceeded to the said hospital and when PW-1 presented Ex.P-1 report, he registered the same as a case in Crime No.99 of 2009 under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C., investigated into the case and laid charge sheet against the petitioner/accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after arguing for some time, confined his arguments only in connection with the question of sentence. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner/accused is aged about 54 years and he has to look after his children, more particularly one of the un-married daughter and he has to make arrangements for the marriage of his daughter. He also submitted that the petitioner/accused suffered one year imprisonment in connection with the alleged offences. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, this court is of the view that since the occurrence is of the year 1999 and nearly eleven years have been elapsed, the sentence of imprisonment may not be necessary and in order to meet the ends of justice, some fine can be imposed against the petitioner/accused herein. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial court in C.C.No.558 of 1999, which was confirmed by the appellate court in Crl.A.No.170 of 2005 is hereby confirmed. As far as the sentence is concerned, the same is modified as follows: Sentence of imprisonment is set aside and the petitioner/accused is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as fine, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above modification in sentence, the criminal revision case is disposed of. ______________ RAJA ELANGO J., Dt.11.06.2010 tjs