JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 11.06.2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 182 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 26.03.2010 in C.C. No. 28 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). 2. The revision case was admitted on 22.06.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl. R.C.M.P. No. 1677 of 2010. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: (i) On 12.01.2008 in between 4.00 p.m. to 04.30 p.m. when one Sk. Maimunnisa (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was sitting on a plastic chair in front of her house and PW-1 was in the verandah, the petitioner drove the Mini Lorry bearing No. AP 7 T 7747 in a rash and negligent manner from Ponnur side and dashed against the deceased. On that, deceased fell from the chair and the lorry was running over on her leg. Then, PW-1, who witnessed the incident, raised alarm and taken the deceased to Private Hospital, Ponnur and therefrom to Government Hospital, Ponnur, where she declared dead. (ii) Basing on Ex.P.1 statement of PW-1, PW-8/S.I. of Police, Ponnur Town Police Station, registered a case in Cr. No. 7 of 2008 for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, PW-8 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 28 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, trial was conducted, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six (6) months for the said offence. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl. Appeal No. 182 of 2010, before the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 11.06.2010, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl. Appeal No. 182 of 2010, before the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 11.06.2010, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Sri B. Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri B. Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of PW-2, who is the husband of the deceased and came to the scene of offence after hearing the alarm raised by PW-1, cannot be relied upon as he is not an eye-witness; that the accused was not the driver of the crime vehicle; that the evidence of PW-3, who is owner of the lorry, cannot be relied upon; that there was a dadi height of five (5) feet in between the accident place and house of PW-1, as such it is not possible for PW-1 to witness the accident; that the Courts below erred in holding that PW-1 is the direct witness to the incident; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective and erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Against the same, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the petitioner drove the crime lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the incident as held by the Courts below; that there is categorical evidence adduced by the prosecution to say that the petitioner, who was the driver of the crime lorry involved in the accident; that in view of the testimony of prosecution witnesses the road is very narrow, the petitioner should have exercised a greater care; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, 5 and 8 and convicted the petitioner for the said offence; that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining PWs. 1 to 8 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.7. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. There is no dispute about involvement of the crime lorry in the accident as well death of the deceased in the incident. 12. The first and foremost contention raised by the petitioner is that the accused was not the driver of the crime lorry on the date of incident. 13. In view of the above said contention, it is relevant to refer the testimony of PW-1, who said to be eye-witness to the incident and PW-3, who is the owner of the crime lorry. PW-1 categorically identified the accused as driver of the crime lorry and deposed that he is responsible for the incident. PW-3 owner of the crime lorry deposed that on the date of incident, accused is the driver of the lorry bearing No. 7747 and he handedover the vehicle record to police. Nothing was elicited to disbelieve the testimony of PWs. 1 and 3 with regard to the identity of the accused as driver of the crime lorry. 14. Now, coming to the rash and negligence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accident area is a narrow place and vehicle cannot not go at high speed and that there was a dadi height of five (5) feet in between the accident place and house, as such it is not possible for PW-1 to witness the accident. 15. As could be seen from Ex.P.7 rough sketch the road runs from south to north i.e., from Ponur side to Aluru and it is a straight road and the accident site is on the road margin. Ex.P.2 scene observation report reveals that a broken plastic chair was found at the place of accident, a portion of dadi was fallen down, the width of road is ten (10) feet, it is a straight road and there is sufficient light. Thereby, the petitioner can easily notice that deceased was sitting on the plastic chair and drive the vehicle in a careful manner to avoid the incident, but he did not do so. Thereby, the petitioner can easily notice that deceased was sitting on the plastic chair and drive the vehicle in a careful manner to avoid the incident, but he did not do so. The negligence cannot be inferred mere from a high speed. The above all circumstances goes to show that the accused drove the vehicle in a negligent manner and caused the incident. 16. Furthermore, PW-1, who is direct witness to the incident categorically testified that she was in the verandah, the accident occurred in front of her house. It is not elicited from PW-1 that because of dadi, she could not witness the incident. As such, there is no material on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1. Furthermore, as per the testimony of PW-5 M.V.I. the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the crime lorry. 17. The trial Court as well Sessions Court categorically held that the testimony of prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused had driven the crime lorry in a rash and negligence manner, resulted death of the deceased. 18. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses. 19. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that there is rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the incident and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Trial Court as well Sessions Court in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offences. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the said offences. 20. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the accident was occurred on 12.01.2008 and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court. 20. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the accident was occurred on 12.01.2008 and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court. He also brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi), AIR 1977 SC 892 wherein the APEX Court considered the facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one (1) month rigorous imprisonment. 21. He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, AIR 1973 SC 2127 wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone, but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 22. In this connection, it is relevant to make a mention a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported between Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 8 SCC 225 wherein the relevant observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 was that “the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of a precious human life. It was a rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition. Having regard to the all these facts, a lenient view can be taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced.” 23. Even in Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 209 the APEX Court at paragraph Nos.18 and 19 held that “the appellant/accused has already undergone one month jail sentence; second, the offence in question neither against the society nor it involves any moral turpitude and nor it has resulted in causing any harm or injury to any human being except causing some damage to the railway property, viz. one railway crossing gate; and lastly, the offence is now 13 years old. one railway crossing gate; and lastly, the offence is now 13 years old. In view of the aforementioned three reasons and in the interest of justice, therefore of the considered opinion that the six months jail sentence awarded to the appellate by the three Courts below deserves to be altered to what he has already undergone by the appellant till date.” 24. As well in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 (3) Crimes 89 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No. 2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.” 25. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to be happened on 12.01.2008 and by this time sixteen (16) years have already been lapsed, but there was a loss of one human life. 26. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three (3) months from six (6) months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 27. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the 52019 (3) Crimes 89 petitioner/accused to that of three (3) months simple imprisonment instead of six (6) months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The rest of the judgment dated 26.03.2010 in C.C. No. 28 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, shall stands confirmed. The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the petitioner/accused, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, to serve the remaining sentence, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner. 28. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.