THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1965 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein was tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda in C.C.No.734 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence by his judgment, dated 10.07.2003, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2003 and the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalguda, while concurring with the said findings of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. The same is questioned in this Revision. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.01.1996, at about 13.30 hours, the deceased-Jatavath Lakki boarded the tractor loaded with haystack to return home and when the tractor reached the outskirts of Chinthapally near Sunkireddy Venkatareddy’s agricultural fields, due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the accused and due to applying of sudden brakes, the deceased fell down and the left rear wheel of the said tractor ran over her dead and she died on the spot. In this connection, a case was registered and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about five days. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 19.11.2004 and immediately, the petitioner was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 24.11.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for quite some time. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR