The court upheld the conviction under IPC sections while emphasizing limitations on revisional jurisdiction and the right to a speedy trial, reducing the sentence due to the petitioner's health and time elapsed since the incident.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 29.06.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby and whereunder the conviction imposed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram in C.C.No.142 of 2005 dated 13.03.2007 for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) was confirmed, but the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ was modified and reduced into Rigorous Imprisonment for three months; the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 338 of ‘the I.P.C’, was modified and reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.

3. Ms. V.Kranthi, learned counsel, representing Sri S.V.S.S.Sivaram, learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist reiterated the grounds of the revision and submitted that the petitioner had not caused the accident rash or negligently; P.W.1 had not identified the petitioner with physical features and no Identification Parade was conducted to the petitioner; P.W.1 did not give the descriptive particulars of the petitioner in the F.I.R and no document was filed to that effect. P.W.6 being eye witness had not deposed the manner of the accident and the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider the evidence of P.W.3 and thus grossly committed illegality in convicting the petitioner. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner has been suffering from cancer; he has been under constant medical supervision; he is undergoing Chemotheraphy; he is aged about 60 years. The alleged occurrence happened in the year 2004, nearly 21 years have passed by; the petitioner was in prison for 14 days either as convict prisoner or undertrial prisoner; the right to speedy Trial, Disposal of the appeal and revision are fundamental rights of the petitioner which are violated; the petitioner has been suffering from mental agony, therefore, lenience may be shown towards the petitioner and urged to allow the revision either on the merits or reduced the sentence of imprisonment which the petitioner had already undergone.

4. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused/petitioner beyond reasonable doubt by examining P.W.1 to P.W.14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17. She further argued that in the revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible, there are no material irregularities or error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, prayed to dismiss the revision.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsels by both sides. I have perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.65 of 2007 dated 29.06.2010, passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?

7. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar, [(2002) 6 SCC 650], wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under:

“12. … We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that noth