HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.No.68 of 2009 Date: 11th November, 2011 Between: Mothukuri Bhaskar, S/o Venkataramaiah, 36 years, Lorry Driver, R/o Gandalaya pet, Mangalgiri town, Guntur District. ..Petitioner-appellant-accused And State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Respondent-Complainant-Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.No.68 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal revision case is filed against the judgment of the learned V-Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, in Crl.A.No.172 of 2006, dated 23.01.2009 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, in C.C.No.444 of 2003 dated 06.09.2006. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.05.2003 at about 1 P.M. on Kaikaluru bypass road to Arundhathipeta, Eluru, the accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No.A.P.16 X 7524 drove it in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Vizag to Vijayawada with a load of steel plates and dashed behind one Vempa Sudhakar, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) who was going on a cycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the cycle and the tyres of the lorry ran over the deceased causing instantaneous death of the deceased. On a complaint given by P.W.1 to police, a case in Crime No.41 of 2003 was registered and investigated into and the accused was charged for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P10. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.172 of 2006 and the learned V-Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. imposed by the trial Court against the revision petitioner-accused. Questioning the said judgment dated 23.01.2009, the present revision is filed by the accused. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is legal and sustainable? POINT:: P.W.1, who is the eye-witness to the incident and also the complainant, has stated that while he was sitting on the pial of his house, the lorry driven by the accused came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result, the deceased dragged to a distance of 18 feet and crushed under the right rear tyre of the lorry and died on the spot. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is also in support of the evidence of P.W.1. In fact, there was no cross-examination of P.W.4, who is also said to be an eye-witness to the incident. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that there is no possibility of P.Ws.1 to 4 being present at the scene of offence and there is also no possibility of the crime vehicle being driven by the accused with high speed causing the incident and consequently the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 cannot be accepted. In this case, evidently the deceased was said to be going ahead on a cycle and the crime vehicle driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner came behind the deceased and dashed against him. There cannot be any contributory negligence attributable to the deceased and evidently the accused has lacked the duty of care. Further the fact that the deceased was dragged to a distance of 18 feet and was crushed under the tyres of the lorry clearly go to show that the petitioner- accused was not able to control the speed of the vehicle. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, which was rightly accepted by the Courts below. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner pleaded that the conviction and sentence of one-year rigorous imprisonment is unduly severe and it will put the family of the revision petitioner to peril and therefore, a lenient view may be taken. Taking into consideration of the above plea, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the Courts below, is reduced to 9 (nine) months rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case is partly allowed. The lower Court is directed to take steps for apprehension of the revision petitioner-accused to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. __________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO 11-11-2011 Gsn.