Abdul Ibrahim vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.01.2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in S.T. No. 99/2002 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

Conviction

Sentence

U/s 304-A of IPC

R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for six months.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that prior to the date of the incident, on 12.03.2002 the acquitted co-accused persons namely Paklu and Chandrashekar, who were in the cattle business, had come to village Aatra and threatened the deceased Gajru Ram for obstructing their cattle business since the decease caught their three trucks which were carrying cattle to Maharashtra for slaughtering the animals in the butchery. These trucks have been handed over to the police. After that on 13.02.2002 in the morning at about 6:30 a.m., when the appellant was driving the truck bearing registration No. MP-04/K-2930 which was carrying cattle to Kakodi (Maharashtra), when he reached the place of incident i.e. village Aatra, then 25-30 persons signaled the appellant to stop the truck. The appellant immediately slowed down the truck but the deceased Gajru Ram mounted on the foot-board of the truck from the driver’s side. It is further alleged that the appellant pushed Gajru Ram who fell down and the appellant ran over the truck on the Gajru Ram and thereafter fled from the spot. Gajru Ram died on the spot. On receiving the said information, the police of Chhuriya police station reached the spot and lodged merg intimation vide Ex.-P-1 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and lodged FIR vide Ex.-P-2. After due investigation, the accused persons were arrested and charge sheet was filed.

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. He adduced one witness in his defence.

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.01.2003, learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the co-accused persons namely Chandrashekhar and Paklu of the offence under Section 120-B of IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 instead of Section 302 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that almost 21 years have passed since the incident has taken place. Two co-accused in the case were acquitted. The trial of the appellant was done under Section 302 of the IPC, but his conviction was done under Section 304/A of the IPC, in which there is a provision of imprisonment for a maximum of 2 years and also he has been punished with rigorous punishment. Also, contrary to the provision of Section 63 of the Indian Penal Code Act, an excessive fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) has been imposed upon him. The appellant is of old age and he has been in custody for about 11 months. Therefore, keeping in view all the above facts, considering the punishment sufficient to the extent of the period spent in custody, he may be released.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

In this case, Dr. A.K. Bansod (PW-8) certified the autopsy report Ex.-P-10 of deceased Gajru Ram, stating that he had a lacerated wound on the anus, which was bleeding, the size of which was 4x2x4 cm. He had multiple fractures on his right femur bone. There were red marks on the back side, on which tire marks were visible. His ribs numbered 8 to 12 were broken. Vertebra nos. 1 and 4 were displaced. The right kidney and liver were crushed. There was blood on the inside of the stomach. He has opined that the death was due to shock caused by profuse bleeding due to fracture of ribs and crushing of internal organs, which was caused by the accident. In cross-examination, he accepted the suggestion that the injuries found on the body may have come from being crushed under a heavy motor vehicle.

Even in the case of the prosecution, Gajru Ram has been told to have died due to being run over by the truck. Thus, the medical evidence confirms the fact that Gajru Ram died due to being run over by the truck.

Among the prosecution witnesses, the direct and important witnesses of the incident are the son of the deceased Gajru (who registered Dehati Merg Ex.-P-1 and Dehati Nalsi Ex.-P-2), Balram Sahu (PW-1), Hiruram (PW-2), Shanti Bai, wife of the deceased(PW.-4), Bhaggulal (PW.-13), Umedram (PW-5) and Shyamlal (PW-7). Out of which Shyamlal (PW-7) has turned hostile and has said to reach the spot later. Similarly, Bhaggulal (PW-13) has also turned hostile and said that he has not seen the incident. However, it has been told that Gajru Ram died due to being crushed under the truck. Umedram (PW-5) has confirmed the spot map Ex.-P-7 prepared by the Investigating Officer- K.P. Banjare (PW-10).

Balram Sahu (PW-1) who is the son of the deceased, has stated to have been present on the spot that in order to stop the truck being driven by the appellant, his father Gajru Ram, climbing on the driver's side foot-board of the truck, was holding the door and shouting to stop the vehicle. Then, the driver pushed him, as a result of which he fell on the ground and the appellant swerved the vehicle due to which his father Gajru Ram came under the truck. Balram Sahu has remained unattributed in his cross-examination. His statement has been found to be corroborated by Dehati Merg Ex,-P-1 and Dehati Naalisi Ex.-P-2.

Shanti Bai (PW-4), wife of the deceased Gajru Ram, has also said in her court statement that there is Maa Bamleshwari Lakshmi Mahila Self Help Committee in her village and is the president of that committee. Her committee had decided that they would protect the animals being transported in vehicles from their village for slaughter. On the date of the incident, when they were stopping the truck of the appellant, her husband Gajru Ram got under the truck from the driver's side and was pushed by the driver. Due to which, Gajru Ram fell on the ground and the driver turned the truck, due to which the truck ran over him, in which Gajru Ram died. This witness has also stood firm and unattributed in her cross-examination. Thereby, the fact is established that Gajru Ram died after being pushed by the appellant/driver fell down and came under the wheels of the truck.

The third important witness Heeruram (PW-2) stated in his court statement that when Gajru Ram got into the truck and asked the driver to stop the vehicle, the driver pushed him with his hand. Due to which, Gajru Ram fell down and when the driver swerved the truck, Gajru Ram was crushed under the truck, resulting in his death. This witness has also stood firm in the cross-examination. Thus, his statement also corroborates the fact that Gajru Ram was crushed to death due to being pushed by the appellant driver and subsequently, due to the overturning of the truck.

On the basis of the above evidence, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304/A of IPC. During the course of the argument in the appeal, much emphasis has not been laid on the question of conviction by the learned counsel for the appellant. Rather than emphasizing the sentence is very strong, it has been argued that the incident is about 21 years old. The appellant has been in jail for about 11 months. He is more than 65 years old The fine has been imposed very high. Therefore, considering the question of punishment liberally, the appellant be released after being punished for the period spent in custody.

There is a provision of imprisonment of 2 years or fine or both for the offence punishable under Section 304/A of IPC.

It is clear from the record that the incident has taken place about 21 years ago. At that time, the age of the appellant-Abdul Ibrahim was 45 years. On the basis of calculation, the present age of the appellant is 66 years. He has not paid the amount of fine. It is reflected from the statement of the wife of the deceased that she had submitted a claim for compensation as a result of the death of her husband in the said accident. In this situation, when the appellant has been in jail for about 11 months, then there is no need to send him back to jail after 21 years in his old age time and some reduction in the penalty is found justified.

Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304/A IPC, the appeal is partly dismissed. Partly allowing the appeal on the question of sentence, reducing the period of 2 years rigorous imprisonment of the appellant to a period of custody of about 11 months. The amount of the fine is reduced from Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand). In case of non-payment of which within sixty days, the appellant will be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for an additional period of 4 months. The bail bonds of the appellant will be considered canceled after 60 days.

In view of above, the present appeal is disposed of.

The record of the trial court along with the copy of this judgment be sent immediately to the trial Court for necessary action and compliance.