Telangana High Court
Mohd Modin , Gore, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 11 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.641 OF 2010
ORDER:
The revision petitioner was convicted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.1551 of 2006, vide Judgment dt.03.12.2008, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six month. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A.No.32/2009 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court vide Judgment dt.19.03.2010. Aggrieved by same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.
2. Heard.
3. According to the case of prosecution, the revision petitioner while driving the lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 4968, dashed against the cyclist. On account of which the cyclist fell down and came under rear wheels of the lorry and died instantaneously. Crime was registered and the Police filed charge sheet. 2
4. Learned Magistrate examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. The version of the eye-witness-PW2 was believed by the Court below and accordingly, the revision petitioner was convicted. Learned Sessions Judge also has given reasons to believe the evidence of PW2 and confirmed the conviction.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that it is improbable that PW2 was an eye-witness to the said accident. He was later planted as a witness to the accident. Further, the driver was stranger and the question of identifying him in the Court by PW2 during the course of trial is highly improbable.
6. The said ground raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not tenable. Admittedly, PW2 was running STD booth and saw the accident. The accident happened within a distance of 20 feet from his STD booth. In the said circumstances, identification by PW2 cannot be disbelieved.
7. However, keeping in view that there are no cases pending against the revision petitioner and he has dependents who are wife, children and parents to look after, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to a period of three months.
3
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner from six months to three months. The trial Court shall cause appearance of the accused/revision petitioner and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.06.2024 tk