The court confirmed the conviction for negligence under Section 304-A IPC but reduced the sentence from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment due to the Revisionist's age and health conditions.

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.,’) against the concurrent conviction for the alleged offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’). The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram in C.C NO.35 of 2009 on 23.12.2009, convicted and sentenced the Revisionist for the offence under Section 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine Rs.3000/-. The said judgment was confirmed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bhimavaram in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2010, on 27.10.2010.

2. Sri. I.V.N Raju, learned Counsel for the Revisionist, while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 suffers from discrepancy and interestedness; ingredients of section 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ were not proved beyond reasonable doubt; the learned Trial Judge erred in finding that the Revisionist while driving vehicle turned at his back which resulted in causing alleged accident; the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that P.W.2 to P.W.5 being independent witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution; material omissions in the evidence of P.W.1 went against the case of the prosecution; the learned Courts below failed to see that P.W.1 being the son of the deceased, narrated that the deceased was throwing the waste material on the extreme left side of the road, whereas the alleged accident occurred in the middle of the road as per the scene of the offence.

3. It is further argued that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that P.W.1 did not properly identify the Revisionist/Accused as the driver of the crime vehicle; the Courts below failed to appreciate the settled law in Mahadeo Hari Lokre v. State of Maharashtra, [AIR 1972 SC 221] and requested to allow the Revision.

4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Revisionist, who is now aged more than 50 years, has been suffering from serious health complications because of post pandemic Covid-19 and requested to show leniency in imposing sentence, in case this Court comes to the conclusion that both the learned Courts below had found guilty on the correct lines. He further submitted that 20 years passed by from the date occurrence and lenient view may be taken by ordering the sentence to that he already undergone.

5. Per contra, Sri Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate and the Appellate Court had properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and there was direct witness who supported the case of prosecution. The judgment relied on by the learned Counsel was negated by the learned Trial Court as prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; the learned Trial court rightly found the Revisionist guilty and appropriately sentenced, confirming the same the learned Appellate Court also on correct lines being the Court of Appeal, having the power to appreciate the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate duly apppreciating the evidence on correct perpective and it is urged to dismiss the Revision as there are no material irregularities committed by the learned Courts below and there is no miscarriage of the justice.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by both the counsels. I have perused the record. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl. A. No.1 of 2010 dated 27.10.2010, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

7. As seen from the record, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 to prove the guilt of the Revisionist. P.W.1,