IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE THIRTYETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2 1 4 of 2005 Between: Md. Maqbool @ Imam … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Raj Kumar Rudra Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2 1 4 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the III-Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Medak in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2004, dated 03-2-2005 confirming the conviction and sentence passed in CC.No. 287 of 2002 through judgment dated 26-2-2004 by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Medak, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was sentence to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 304-A IPC, further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000- for the offence under section 338 IPC in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section 337 IPC in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : On 07-6-2002 at about 2100 hours, the complainant Takur Anil Singh lodged a complaint stating that on 7-6-2002 at about 2000 hours while he was coming along with his father from Membojipally to Medak in an auto, and by the time when they reached the outskirts of the said village, a lorry bearing Regdn.No. AP-13U-5934 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, which turned turtled and thereby causing severe injuries. Further one of the passengers of lorry died on the spot. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered Cr.No. 48 of 2002 for the offence under section 337, 304-A IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the police examined the complainant and recorded his statement and sent the injured to Govt.Hospital for treatment and thereafter examined the other injured persons and recorded their statements and sent them to the same hospital. The police also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and sent the dead body to postmortem examination. After completion of all the formalities, the Investigation Officer filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under section 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-9 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused denied the same. 6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 304-A IPC, further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000- for the offence under section 338 IPC in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section 337 IPC in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months. 7. On appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate were confirmed by the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Medak, in Crl.A.No. 52 of 2004, dated 03-2-2005. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he confine his arguments only in connection with the sentence and the petitioner has already undergone pre-trial detention, therefore, he further prayed mercy of this Court. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration that the offence is of the year 2002 and the petitioner has been suffering mental agony due to his involvement in the above offence. 10. Considering the same, the conviction recorded by both the courts below is confirmed and sentence is modified to the period already undergone and the fine amount paid by the revision petitioner shall remain unaltered. 11. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 30-09-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2 1 4 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 3 0 Date: 30-09-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L