THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Crl.R.C.No.1933 of 2003 24th February, 2010 Between :- Sk. Masthan .. Petitioner/accused And The State of A.P. through The S.H.O., Nalgonda I Town P.S., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .. Respondent/Complainant THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Crl.R.C.No.1933 of 2003 ORDER:- While admitting the Criminal Revision Case, on 26-12-2003 this Court made the following order in Crl.M.P.No.9035/2003:- “Interim suspension of sentence, and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda.” 2. The Counsel for petitioner had taken this Court through the Grounds of Revision and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the evidence available on record and would maintain that inasmuch as proper findings had not been recorded, benefit of doubt can be given to the petitioner and acquittal to be recorded. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by both the Court of first instance and also the Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence on record in detail, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 4. Heard the Counsel. 5. This Criminal Revision Case is filed as against the Judgment made in Criminal Appeal No.136/2002 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of first instance – Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Nalgonda in C.C.No.118/99. Before the Court of first instance P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were marked. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Nalgonda on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner-accused be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of Criminal Appeal No.136/2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and the Appellate Court having formulated the following points for consideration:- 1) Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused drove the lorry bearing No.AP-26U-1269 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased? 2) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by learned Magistrate is legal and sustainable? recorded reasons at paras 7 and 8 and ultimately dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of first instance. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case had been filed. 6. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is a resident of Narasinga Pet of Gudur Mandal of Nellore District. The deceased is Mohd.Fahad Musthafa Ahmed @ Sharukh, who was aged about four years, and was a resident of BTS Area, Nalgonda. The accused was being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-26U-1269. On 17-2-97 at about 8.45 a.m., the accused drove the lorry bearing No.AP-26U-1269 rashly and negligently at BTS Area, Nalgonda, while proceeding from Guntur to Hyderabad and dashed against the deceased Sharukh, while the deceased was going by walk on the left side of the road. The deceased was inflicted with fatal injuries and was shifted to the hospital. The deceased boy succumbed to the injuries on the same day of the accident. Mohd.Sajid, Ghouse Khan and Mohd.Khaja Mumtaz Ahmed witnessed the accident. Thus, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. 7. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant, P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses; the evidence of P.W.5 is circumstantial evidence; P.W.6 is the panch witness; P.W.7 is the Medical Officer; P.Ws.8 and 9 are the Investigating Officers; and P.W.10 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. 8. This evidence, in fact, had been appreciated in elaboration and Exs.P.1 to P.7 also had been taken into consideration and appropriate findings had been recorded. The deceased died in a motor accident is not in dispute. The medical evidence of P.W.7 would go to show that the death was due to the injuries received in the motor accident. Merely because P.W.1 is related to the deceased, on that ground itself the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be disbelieved. When the deceased was a child, there is nothing unnatural being accompanied by a relative. Inasmuch as, the Court of first instance and also the Appellate Court appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 and also Exs.P.1 to P.7 in proper perspective, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that this is not a fit matter to interfere with. 9. However, in the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment to a period of six months and accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year which had been awarded by the Courts below is hereby modified to simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed to the extent indicated above. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 24th February, 2010 smr