IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 24-06-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.508 of 2004 Between: Kristipati Srinivasa Reddy 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.508 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is preferred by the petitioner-accused challenging judgment dated 17.03.2004 passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2002, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.258 of 2000 dated 10.04.2002 by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole, was confirmed. The case of the prosecution is as follows: A report was presented by B.Hanumanthu that his wife Rosamma died on 15.08.2000 at 09.30 A.M., because the petitioner/accused who was the driver of a tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner near Siddavari Kankara Mill and hit the deceased. The case was registered in Crime No.57 of 2001 under Section 304-A IPC and the Sub-Inspector of Police concerned took up and conducted the investigation of the case. Further after the completion of the investigation of the case, the corresponding charge sheet was filed. The petitioner-accused was tried for offence punishable under Section 304-A, IPC and was found guilty of committing the offence and was accordingly convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of paying the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months whereas aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2002 whereby the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, on consideration of the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by that, 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. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that even as per the prosecution the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 who were examined as eye witness as discloses that the road, where the accident took place, was uneven and there were about 40 to 50 people traveling on the Tractor and only because of the condition of the road, the deceased slipped down from her seat and as such the ingredients of Section 304-A IPC are not established and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court are not sustainable. It is pertinent to note here that the accused was the driver of the Tractor on which about 40 to 50 people were aboarded, which itself amounts to rash and negligent act on his part because the Tractors are not meant for transportation of any passengers and driving the vehicle on such road with so many persons aboarded on it was not warranted. However it is important that it is not a case of collision with any other vehicle or any other object. Further it is a case of the year 2001 and he must have suffered a lot because he was forced to attend before various Courts in connection with this case and he also might have suffered a lot because of the imposition of sentence against him. Further it is represented that he was in judicial custody for eight days. Taking into consideration the material available, I do not find any reason or any ground to interfere with the conviction imposed by the Courts below but however I feel that it is a fit case where the sentence can be reduced. Accordingly the sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month and the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner/accused shall be given as set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. while retaining the fine clause. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed subject to the above modification. ______________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 24th June, 2011 VJL