JUDGMENT Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The Sub-Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 304-a of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C'). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the offence took place on 02.06.2008 at about 11.15 a.M. The deceased who was aged about five (5) years was standing by the side of the road towards left side in front of house of LW.8. The accused was the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.aP 5T 6025, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused an accident to the deceased. For that, PW.1 who is the Village Revenue Officer, Chakraigudem Village, lodged a complaint i.e., Ex.1 to the police. PW.3 to PW.5 were the direct witnesses to the accident and PW.2 is the father of the deceased. 3. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Eluru, on considering the charge sheet filed by the prosecution framed the following charges: i. Whether the prosecution established identity of the accused ? ii. Whether the prosecution established rash/negligent driving of the accused? iii. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 304-a of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt or not? 4. PW.3 to PW.5 were the direct witnesses who identified and stated that the accused has drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The trial court has not discussed evidence of PW.3 to PW.5 in detail in the judgment. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under section 304-a of I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a month. 5. aggrieved by the judgment of the Court below in C.C.No.238 of 2008, the petitioner filed an appeal before the I additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, vide Criminal appeal No.53 of 2012. The lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The Court below failed to see that the owner of the vehicle stated that the present accused is not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The Court below failed to see that the owner of the vehicle stated that the present accused is not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The Court below erroneously convicted the accused by relying on the test identification parade which is a weak piece of evidence. The test identification parade is not conducted in accordance with law and there is a doubt about the causing of the accident by the petitioner herein and it ought not to have been convicted the accused basing on the test identification parade and also there is a discrepancy with regard to the evidence of the direct witnesses. 8. The lower appellate Court at para No.12 of the judgment has discussed the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned lower appellate Court Judge after considering the same submissions made by the petitioner herein, answered that the accused who is driver of the vehicle and who was identified by the direct witness i.e., PW.3 to PW.5, categorically stated that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner talking over cell phone while driving the said crime vehicle, and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays to modify the sentence for the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner stating that the accident occurred way back in the year, 2008 and sending the revision petitioner to jail is not justifiable as a period of fourteen (14) years has already elapsed from the date of accident and his family members are depending on him. 10. This Court being a revisional Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence adduced in the trial Court. However no substantial grounds have been raised by the petitioner as against the lower appellate Court which confirmed the judgment of the Court below. 11. 10. This Court being a revisional Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence adduced in the trial Court. However no substantial grounds have been raised by the petitioner as against the lower appellate Court which confirmed the judgment of the Court below. 11. However, this Court feels that as fourteen (14) years have been elapsed from the date of accident, this Court feels it appropriate to modify the sentence by reducing the same, while confirming the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 304 I.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) months instead of six (6) months while giving set off to the period of imprisonment already undergone. 12. accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Office is directed to send back the record to the Court below. 13. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.