THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1014 of 2010

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) by the petitioner/accused against the judgment dated 13.05.2010 in Crl.A.No.189 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’) confirming the conviction dated 31.10.2008 passed by the the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suryapet, in C.C. No. 7390 of

2005.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2010, the sentence imposed against petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment of two (02) years to rigorous imprisonment of six (06) months and the sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment of six (06) months to rigorous imprisonment of three (03) months.

3. Heard Sri G.L.Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner was 33 years at the time of the alleged accident. He further submitted that the petitioner faced trial wherein eye witnesses turned hostile and that except the evidence of PW.2/sister of the deceased, there was nothing to hold conviction in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is a poor driver and he has been going around the Courts for almost 20 years and that he has been put to lot of suffering. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and six (06) months, for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC, respectively, was reduced by the appellate Court to a period of six (06) months and three (03) months. He further submitted that the petitioner herein is the sole bread winner of his family. Hence, he prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence by allowing this revision case.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner was identified by PW.2 who is the sister of the deceased who died in the alleged accident. He further submitted the offences under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC were held to be proved and the conviction was upheld but the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court was reduced by the appellate Court by taking a lenient view. He thus prayed to dismiss this revision case.

6. Perused the record. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and after reviewing the evidence of the eye witnesses including the evidence of PW.2/sister of the deceased, it is to be noted that both the eye witnesses i.e., PW.3 and 4 turned hostiles. PW.2/the sister of the deceased supported the case of prosecution. It is observed that the petitioner has undergone 15 days of imprisonment during the course of trial and appeal. It appears that the petitioner is aged about 50 years. It is noteworthy that the petitioner, being a middle aged person and running a family, further imprisonment against the petitioner would cause hardship to his entire family as he is stated to be the sole bread winner of his family. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been undergoing mental agony for the past twenty years. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of 15 days, the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the appellate Court for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC is modified to that of only fine, to meet the ends of justice.

7. Thus Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed modifying the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2010 in Crl.A.No.189 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. The sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused for the said offen