THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1115 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 14.03.2011, made by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Tanuku in Crl.A.No.237 of 2010 confirming the judgment dated 10.8.2010 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku in C.C.No.584 of 2007. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 1.9.2007 at about 1.30 p.m., one Pinninti Durga Rao (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”), was coming on his cycle from Tanuku to Unguturu and when he reached the shop near MLA’s house, the accused drove the ten-tires lorry bearing No. AP 37 V 3618 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down towards the right side of the road and the front wheel of the lorry ran over him causing severe injuries to his stomach and head and then, the deceased was shifted to the Balaji Hospital, Tanuku and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries at 3 pm., on the same day. On the basis of the statement given by M. Durga Rao, a case in Cr.No.160 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC was registered. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.584 of 2007. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The said judgment was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.237 of 2010 before the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Tanuku. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for a period of one week. Heard and perused the material available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the judgment of the appellate Court does not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the accused is wandering around the Courts since 2007 and in view of the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for a period of one week, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC imposed against the petitioner herein viz., Eeda Srinivasa Rao by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Tanuku in Criminal Appeal No.237 of 2010, by judgment dated 14.3.2011, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine amount. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 21st March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1115 of 2011 21.3.2011