HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1035 OF 2004 DATED 30th JUNE, 2010.
BETWEEN Shaik Shafi …..Petitioner/Accused and The State of AP, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor …Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1035 OF 2004
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 17.11.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2000 by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nellore, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC in the order dated 4-8-2000 in C.C.No. 41 of 2000 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, Nellore.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 3-5-1996 at about 19.00 hours the petitioner/accused drove the town bus bearing No.AAN.5067 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooterist (deceased) resulting his death. P.W.1 gave a report to the police. Based on the same, the police registered a case in Crime No. 34 of 1996 under Section 304-A IPC and investigated into. After filing the charge sheet, the trial Court took the cognisance of the case on the file for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the petitioner/accused..
The trial Court on a full-fledged trial and appreciation of the evidence on record found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year.
On appeal being Criminal Appeal. No. 98 of 2000 preferred by the petitioner/accused, the lower Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Hence this revision.
It is needles to state that the powers of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. are truncated and unless the finding recorded by the Court below is shown to be perverse or incorrect or illegal or not based on any evidence on record, the judgment under challenge needs interference. In the present case, on a perusal of the evidence available on record and on hearing the learned Counsel appearing on either side, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below so as to interfere with the same.
However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner confining his argument to the inflicting of the sentence on the petitioner/accused, submitted that the petitioner has suffered a stigma of conviction in the society; that after lapse of a decade of the incident, if the petitioner is sent to judicial custody, the same may cause prejudice to him and that the petitioner is now aged about 36 years, and he has to look after his family members and school going children as he being the only breadwinner. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner can be shown some lenience insofar as the sentence ordered by the Court below is concerned.
As there is no serious objection from the side of the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record, and submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, thought it fit to show some lenience on the petitioner. Considering the same, the conviction recorded by the Courts below is confirmed, however, sentence of imprisonment recorded against the petitioner/accused is set aside and in its place, the petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, within a period of four weeks from the date of copy of this order is made ready.
Subject to the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 30th JUNE, 2010.
Msnr.