Arun Kalal vs State

V. Jagannathan

This revision petition is by the accused, who suffered a judgment of conviction at the hands of the trial court in C.C.Ho.14/94 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC and being sentenced to 6 months imprisonment in respect of each one of the two offences. The lower appellate court confirmed the judgment of the trial court by dismissing the appeal preferred by this petitioner.

The facts of the case as per the prosecution version in short are that, on. 10.10.93 at about 10.30 a.m. at Kumbalur rig bore, the deceased Sapna was crossing the road along with her sister Kavitha, a jeep bearing registration No.KA-05 M-3827 driven by the petitioner came from Malebennur side at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Sapna. The girl suffered grievous injuries to the vital parts of her body and died in the hospital at 9.30 p.m., on the same day. A complaint was lodged by her father Somashekarappa (PW-1) as per Ex.P1. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

Accused pleading not guilty, the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses and produced 11 documents and 2 M.Os''. Accused statement was recorded and he led no defence evidence Exs.D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of the accused. Learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record has accepted the prosecution case and held that in view of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hance, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed, which were confirmed by the lower appellate court.

I have heard Smt.M.N.Vijaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP for the res pondent-State and perused the records of this case.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle was driven by the accused at normal speed and there was no marks on the road at the place of accident to indicate that the vehicle was driven in high speed. She referred to the evidence of PW-11 in this regard. She further contended that except PW-1 and FW-6, who are the father and sister of the deceased, there is no other evidence to show that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner by the petitioner. PW-6 does not say in her evidence that the deceased was running on the road. Taking all these factors into account and incident heaving taken place 18 years back, the petition is therefore be allowed by setting aside the judgment of the trial court.

On the other hand, submission of learned HCGP is that, the eyewitnesses have deposed in support of the prosecution case and there is no evidence to the contrary to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. The girl who died was a minor, aged 6 years as per the evidence of the doctor who was examined as PW-8. The fact that the accused was driving the jeep is also in not in dispute. Therefore, both the courts below committed no error in convicting the petitioner. As such, the petition be dismissed.

Having thus beard both sides and after going through the evidence on record, I find that the testimony of the eyewitnesses, in particular PW-1 the father and PW-6 the sister of the deceased goes to indicate that the girl Sapna was hit by the jeep when the said girl was crossing the road. The fact that the girl aged 6 years itself is sufficient to hold that the driver of the jeep had no responsibility for driving the vehicle. More over, the accident occurred not in the night but during the broad day light at 10.30 a.m. There is no evidence to show that at the place of accident, there was any hump etc, In view of the eyewitnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, whose testimony has remained unshaken, the trial court had so difficulty in accepting the prosecution case and convicting the petitioner. The lower appellate court has also considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carefully and has held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. I, therefore see no case is made out by the petitioner for this Court to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed.

As far as sentence is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the incident happened 18 years back and the petitioner has suffered a lot during these long period and therefore, the sentence be reduced. On the other hand, submission of learned HCGP is that the sentence awarded is just and reasonable.

Having thus heard both sides, taking into account the over all facts and circumstances of this case and the incident having taken place 18 years back and the petitioner also having undergone lot of mental agony and sufferings all these years and also taking note of the Apex Court''s decision reported in AIR 2009 SCW 1744, the sentence can be modified by directing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- which amount can be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased as this would serve the ends of justice instead of awarding any other sentence.

Hence, the following order is passed:-

(i) Conviction of the petitioner is sustained.

(ii) Instead of sentence imposed by the trial court, the petitioner is directed to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and the paid amount on being deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation.

(iii) In the event of non-payment of fine within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall undergo 6 months imprisonment.

With the above modification in the sentence, this revision petition stands allowed in part.