Ayyub Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 03.01.2023, passed in Criminal Case No. 34 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Ayyub Ali, by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 279 and 304A IPC. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279 IPC and under Section 304A IPC, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 500/-. The challenge has also been made to the judgment and order dated 24.04.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2023, Ayyub Ali Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). By which, the appeal has been dismissed.

The revision has been admitted to the extent of examining the quantum of sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is a boy of 23 years of age. He is a student and he is in custody since 25.06.2024. This is his first offence.

Learned State counsel admits that the revisionist has no criminal antecedents.

According to the prosecution case, on 31.05.2018 at 7:30 a.m., the revisionist while driving tractor bearing Registration No. UK-06Q-7591 (“the tractor”) in a rash and negligent manner hit Shamshad Navi, due to which he died. The applicant left the tractor and ran away. Report was lodged by the son of the deceased.

After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was submitted against the revisionist, which is basis of the case. The accusations were read over to the revisionist. He did not plead guilty.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, PW1 Intikhab Alam, PW2 Amir Khan, PW3, Amir Dulha, PW4 Tanvir Alam, PW5 Babu Khan, PW6 Dr. K.C. Pant, PW7 Gokulanand and PW8 SI Janardan Bhatt.

The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, he has been falsely implicated.

After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. It was also unsuccessfully challenged in appeal.

PW1 Intikhab Alam is the informant. According to him, he had seen the incident. On 31.05.2018 at 7:30 a.m., the revisionist hit the deceased while driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. This witness has proved the FIR. PW2 Amir Khan and PW4 Tanvir Alam have also corroborated the statement of PW1 Intikhab Alam.

PW3 Amir Dulha has not supported the prosecution case.

PW5 Babu Khan is the witness of the inquest.

PW6 Dr. K.C. Pant, conducted the post mortem of the deceased and proved the post mortem report.

PW7 H.C.M.T. Gokulanand inspected the tractor.

PW8 SI Janardan Bhatt is the Investigating Officer. He has proved all the documents.

The eyewitnesses have stated about the incident. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference insofar as the conviction of the revisionist under Section 279 and 304A IPC is concerned.

The question of sentence also gains importance in the criminal case. Various factors are considered while awarding an adequate sentence, it includes the nature of offence, the position of the offender and other attending circumstances. In the instant case, the accident took place in the morning at 7:30 on a village road. The revisionist is a young boy of 23 years of age.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be better served, if the revisionist convicted with the sentence which he has already undergone. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be partly allowed.

The conviction of the revisionist under Sections 279 and 304A IPC is confirmed. The sentence is modified as follows:-

(i) Under Section 279 IPC- two months simple imprisonment with the fine remaining unaltered.

(ii) Under Section 304A IPC- the sentence of imprisonment which the revisionist has already undergone in the case with the fine remaining unaltered.

The revision is partly allowed accordingly.

The revisionist is in custody. Let he be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.