HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1691 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A.No.445 of 2003 dated 29.09.2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C., imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, in C.C.No.230 of 2002 dated 03.11.2003. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.09.2002 at about 7.45 P.M., the revision petitioner-accused drove the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 7T 5485 at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner on G.B.C. road at Budampadu and hit one Srinivasarao, who was standing on the margin of the road, as a result of which, he sustained severe injuries and subsequently he died while taking treatment. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner- accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned that the alleged offence took place in the year 2002 and almost 8 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner must have repented for what he did and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of one week subsequent to the dismissal of the criminal appeal on 29.09.2004. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-accused. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. The revision petitioner-accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 17-02-2011 Gsn.