THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1983 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein was tried by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem in C.C.No.71 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and under Section 134(a) and (b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. On behalf of the defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, by his judgment, dated 13.04.2004, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Further, sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and also to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2004 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, while concurring with the said findings of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, vide judgment, dated 29.11.2004, confirming the conviction. However, the Sessions Judge reduced the sentence from two years to six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC; from three months to one month for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and from six months to three months for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. The same is questioned in this Revision. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W-1 is working as Auditor in Co-Operative Society, Eluru. On 28.01.2000 morning he went to Darsiparru on his office work and after completion of his work, he came to Tanuku road bus- stop, Tadepalligudem and was waiting for the bus. In the meantime, one taxi bearing No.AP-37-T-8544, which was driven by the deceased, came from Tadepalligudem side and stopped near the bus-stop. Then P.Ws.1 to 3 got into the taxi to go to Tauku and when the driver was driving the taxi towards Tanuku side and it reached near Vinayaka temple, Juvvalapalem, the accused, being driver of lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-2678 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the taxi, as a result, the driver of the taxi received serious injuries and fell unconscious and was shifted to Government Hospital for treatment and he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Basing on the report given by P.W-1, a case was registered and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 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 quite some time i.e., for three days. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 29.11.2004 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 01.2.2004, 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 simple imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, simple imprisonment of one month for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC, simple imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC imposed on the petitioner-accused by the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in Crl.A.No.75 of 2004, vide judgment, dated 29.11.2004, 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