IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 22-06-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.877 of 2004 Between: Parisa Srinivasa Rao Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.877 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is preferred by the petitioner-accused challenging judgment dated 06.02.2004 passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2002, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.403 of 1996 dated 28.01.2002 by the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli, was confirmed. The case of the prosecution is as follows: on 3.5.1996 the accused started from Ram Nagar of West Bengal State with coal load in a lorry to go to Piduguralla of Guntur District and reached Guntur on 06.05.1996 at about 07.00 P.M. There he boarded some passengers on the top of the load i.e. over tarpaline at Guntur, Sattenapalli, Reddigudem and Anupalem etc. As per the instructions of the accused, Attaluri Venkateswara Rao who was the cleaner of the lorry collected fare from the passengers. On the same day at about 09.15 p.m., when the lorry crossed Pilleru vagu, and was proceeding on a straight road which was very smooth, the accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed with a view to over take another lorry proceeding in front of his Lorry and while doing so his lorry was driven to the extreme right side of the road due to which the front right wheel of the Lorry hit a road side margin boulder stone and the lorry was turned to the right side and then went towards north and fell into a ditch of 10 feet deep as result of which Shaik China Saida (deceased No.1), Shaik Peda Saida (deceased No.2), Shaik Sydabee (deceased No.3), shaik Saidabee (deceased No.4), Mohammad Babumiya (deceased No.6) and Abdul Rajak (deceased No.7) died on the spot whereas Koppuravuri Venkata Koteswara Rao(P.W.6), Shaik Gun Sydulu (P.W.1), Gujjarlapudi Eliaiah (P.W.2), Pasumarthi Nageswara Rao (L.W.4), Thota Venkateswarlu (L.W.5), Anchula Chowdeswara Rao (P.W.3), Mohammad Habeeb (L.W.7), Raaga Veeramallaiah (L.W.8), Veerla Srinivasa Rao (P.W.4), Potla Balakotaiah (P.W.7), Shaik Khasim Peera (P.W.5), Pulukuri Venkateswarlu (P.W.8) and the accused sustained injuries being passengers and driver of it. All the injured were shifted to an hospital for treatment. On information, concerned S.I. of Police P.W.22 rushed to Vijaya Nursing home, Piduguralla and recorded statement of P.W.6 and registered it as Crime no.27 of 1996 under Section 304-A and 337 IPC and took up and completed the investigation of the case and then filed charge sheet. The petitioner-accused was tried for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 I.P.C and Section 184 M.V. Act read with 252 (2) M.V.Rules read and Section 177 M.V. Act and Rules 3 and 4 of M.V. Rules read with Section 181 of the M.V. Act and was found guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 I.P.C and Section 184 of M.V. Act read with 252 (2) M.V. Rules and Section 177 of the M.V. Act and was accordingly convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years under the 1st count; simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under the 2nd count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer S.I for a period of two months under the 3rd count; further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer S.I for a period of one month under the 4th count; and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to suffer S.I for 15 days under the 5th count while he was found not guilty of committing the offence punishable under Rules 3 and 4 of the M.V Rules read with Section 181 of M.V. Act and acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C of those offences. A further direction was given that all the substantive sentences should run concurrently and the remand period if any should be set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C whereas aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2002 whereby the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, on consideration of the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused has preferred the present criminal revision case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed before the trial Court. Heard. It is requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in jail totally for four months twenty two days subsequent to his arrest initially and also subsequent to the disposal of the case before the appellate Court and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case including the fact that it is a case of 1996 and since then he has suffered a lot in attending various Courts and getting the conviction imposed and spending lot of money, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced. I have gone through the record. The findings of the Courts below are based on good evidence and sound reasoning and there is no reason to interfere with the same except with regards to the question of sentence. Further examining the material available and also the representation made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel that it is a fit case where the sentence can be reduced. Accordingly the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for various charges is reduced to the period of detention already undergone by the accused while retaining the fine clause. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed subject to the above noted modification. ______________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 22nd June, 2011 VJL