High CourtsSingle Bench

Abdul Majeed vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 6 December 1996 · Citation: (1997) 21 ACR 73

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S.N. Tripathi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 204, 279, 338
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 115 of 1996
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 418 words

G.S.N. Tripathi, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.9.96 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1996, whereby he has rejected the appeal of the accused and upheld the order dated 24.6.96 passed by the Xth Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. By virtue of this order, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused Abdul Majeed on a charge u/s 279/338/204, I.P.C. and passed a consolidated sentence of 6 months'' simple imprisonment and further ordered payment of Rs. 500 as fine. On failure to make the payment, 15 days'' additional S.I. has been awarded.

2.

This revision has been admitted only on the point of sentence.

3.

The proved facts are as below. On 12.12.82, at about 11.30 a.m. in village Bhauta Pratappur Kalpi Road, P.S. Sachendi, Kanpur Nagar, the accused was driving Bus No. URE-5479 rashly and negligently and caused an accident by knocking down Bans Gopal and Devi Prasad, as a result of which. Bans Gopal died on the spot. His cycle was damaged. The other person Devi Prasad also received injuries.

4.

The Appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the date, time and place.

5.

Before the learned C.M.M., oral as well as documentary evidence has been led. After perusal and analysis of the same, the learned C.M.M. has passed the order aforesaid. That order has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge aforesaid.

6.

I have gone through the judgment on the record. I find that both the Courts below have intensively considered the evidence available on the record and on that basis, they have concluded a finding of fact as noted above. This has not been assailed.

7.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist has urged that the sentence is too severe. Therefore, some leniency should be shown. Further he has argued that the incident took place long long ago and after such a distance of time, it will not be appropriate to order the accused-Appellant to suffer incarceration. I do not agree.

8.

The incident took place in broad-day-light and one person, namely, Bans Gopal was killed on the spot. The other person Devi Prasad received extensive injuries. Under these circumstances, it will not be justified to further minimise the sentence, because the sentence is already very soft. To make softer still, will generate disregard towards the administration to justice. Therefore, I do not find any force in this argument of the learned Counsel.

9.

The revision is dismissed accordingly.