ORDER : V Srinivas, J. This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 09.05.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.60 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC in the judgment dated 26.02.2010 in C.C.No.178 of 2008 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that: on 19.05.2006 at about 02.00 a.m., the accused who is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 6679 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and by the time they reached near Surya Mineral Water Plant, the lorry dashed against the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 37 W 50. As a result, the deceased and PW.1 to PW.4, who were traveling in the said auto as passengers sustained severe injuries and they were shifted to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru. Basing on the compliant of PW.1, a case in crime No.76 of 2006 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 338 and 337 IPC. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Police after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.178 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. 3. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.11 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 4. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the offence under Section 338 IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 337 IPC. 5. Against the said impugned judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the trial Court’s judgment. 6. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused. 7. 5. Against the said impugned judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the trial Court’s judgment. 6. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Smt. D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the Sessions Court?” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the lorry driver and the witnesses did not speak about the rash and negligent driving of the accused. He further submits that there is also failure of identification of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle. It is also further submits that no test identification parade is conducted and identification for the first time in Court is of no significance. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, the auto turned turtle and hit the road side tree. Due to which, the passengers in the auto sustained injuries and one person died. 10. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 who are injured persons and inmates of the auto in one voice deposed in their evidence about the rash and negligence driving of the lorry, and identified the accused, resulting which the accident occurred. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 is trustworthy basing on the same the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Court has rightly convicted the accused for the said offences. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. Coming to the case of the prosecution, on 19.05.2006, at about 02.00 a.m., the accused who is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 6679 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and by the time, they reached near Surya Mineral Water Plant, the lorry dashed against the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 37 W 50. Coming to the case of the prosecution, on 19.05.2006, at about 02.00 a.m., the accused who is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 6679 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and by the time, they reached near Surya Mineral Water Plant, the lorry dashed against the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 37 W 50. As a result of which, the deceased and PW.1 to PW.4, who were traveling in the said auto as passengers sustained severe injuries and they were shifted to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru. 12. Admittedly, PWs.1, 2 and 4 are injured persons and they were inmates of the auto and in their evidence in one voice stated that when the auto reached Surya Mineral Plant, the crime vehicle in high speed hit their auto. According to them, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 13. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 remains unshaken even exhaustive cross examination with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, which was driven by the accused and caused of accident. Nothing was elicited during the cross-examination of PWs.1, 2 and 4 to disbelieve their testimonies nor trustworthiness. 14. Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.P.12 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence shows that the auto which hit a tree by the side of the road. PW.8 is investigating officer stated in the cross-examination that at the time of his visit to the scene of offence he did not find the crime vehicle. Even though, rough sketch shows that the crime vehicle is not secure at the scene of offence. 15. The evidence of PWs.2 and 4 have categorically stated that the auto was hit by the lorry, turned turtle and fell by the side of the road. Exs.P3 and P4 which are the wound certificates clearly establishes that PWs.1 and 2 were travelling in the auto at the time of the accident along with the deceased. 16. In the said accident one person succumbed with two injuries and the other inmates of the auto sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle. 16. In the said accident one person succumbed with two injuries and the other inmates of the auto sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 along with documentary evidence clearly proves the case of the prosecution and accordingly accused is found of the offence under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and rightly convicted the accused. 17. All these facts goes 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. 18. 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 offence. 19. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the accident was occurred on 19.05.2006, the petitioner is having wife, children and old aged parents and all of them are depending on him and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner 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 Sessions from two (2) months to one (1) month rigorous imprisonment. 20. 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/-. 21. 20. 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/-. 21. 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 all these facts, a lenient view can be taken in the matter and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced.” 22. 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. In view of the aforementioned three reasons and in the interest of justice, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the six months jail sentence awarded to the Sessions by the Courts below deserves to be altered to what he has already undergone by the appellant till date.” 23. 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.” 24. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to have happened on 19.05.2006 and by this time eighteen (18) years have already been lapsed, but there was a loss of one human life. 25. 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 (03) months from six (06) months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 26. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused to that of three (03) months simple imprisonment instead of six (06) months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The rest of the judgment dated 26.02.2010 in C.C.No.178 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, 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 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, to serve the remaining sentence, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner. 27. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 28. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.