THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.318 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem in C.C.No.425 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. On behalf of the defence though no oral evidence was adduced, Exs.D.1 was marked. The trial court having analysed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Questioning the said judgment dated 05.01.2000 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2000 and the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) West Godavari District at Eluru by his judgment dated 06.02.2004 dismissed the said appeal. Hence this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner was the driver of the lorry bearing No.MP – 23/D-5789. On 20.04.1996 at about 8.00 PM while proceeding towards Samarlakota the petitioner drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the cyclist by name Kaligineedi Murali aged about 14 years, who was returning to his home at Ananthapalli, with the right front portion of the said lorry in between K.M. Stone No.48/6 and 48/8, Yrnagudem to Ananthapalli because of which the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot when the front tyres of the lorry ran over the deceased. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but however, requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 5 In the light of the said submission this court looked into the record. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 06.02.2004 and immediately the petitioner was taken into custody and it is only after admission of this revision and granting of bail by this court on 25.02.2004, the petitioner came out of the jail. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of nearly 20 days. As the said sentence imposed by the court below is only imprisonment for six months, and as the petitioner was in jail for about 20 days and inasmuch as the offence relates to the year 1996 this court takes a lenient view. 6 Accordingly, the said sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the petitioner by the court below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. -------------- 07.12.2010 Kvsn