HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.982 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against judgment dated 15.4.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal confirming conviction recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur against the petitioner-Accused for offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code in C.C. No.141 of 2001, dated 18.10.2002 whereas, however, reducing sentence of rigorous imprisonment to six months from one year imposed by the learned Magistrate. The facts which led to the filing of the Criminal Revision Case are as follows: On 10.6.2001 at about 8.00 a.m. the petitioner, who was the driver of tipper bearing No. AEK 4444, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against one Devarasetti Sneha, who was going on the road. As a consequence of it, the tipper ran over her head, resulting in her instantaneous death. Basing on a report given by P.W.1, concerned police registered the case in crime No. 110 of 2001 against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. On the completion of the investigation of the case, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner whereas he was tried for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced as referred. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and on behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was let in whereas the consequences took place as noted above. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that it is a case of 2001 and the petitioner has been wandering around the Courts since a long time. He further has submitted that the accident took place only due to negligence on the part of the mother of the deceased boy and the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the judgment passed by the Courts below ? Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. The Courts below properly examined the evidence recorded and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts. However, it is clear that the petitioner has been wandering around the Courts since 2001, by reason of which, he must have lost good part of his valuable life and also spent good amounts and had undergone consequential sufferance. Taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances, while confirming the conviction recorded against the petitioner-accused, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed on the petitioner-accused for offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. to three months. The fine amount shall remain undisturbed. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 26.4.2011 pnb