Deoki Nandan vs State of U.P.

N. B. Asthana, J.—This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 5121994 passed by Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1994 confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the 1st Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Etah on 2111994 in case No. 452 of 1993. The Magistrate convicted the appellant under Sections 279 and 304A, I. P. C. and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 500 under Section 279, I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 4000 for the offence under Section 304A, I. P. C. A sum of Rs. 3,000 was awarded as compensation to the first informant.

It appears that on 3091989 Surendra Singh aged about 16 years son of the complainant was going to school from his village. When he was going on the road Tractor UPT No. 8327 which was being driven by the revisionist negligently and carelessly dashed against Surendra Singh which resulted in his death. F. 1. R. was lodged and in due course charge sheet was submitted against him.

The prosecution examined two witnesses of fact namely, Sewa Ram and Atul Kumar, and Investigating Officer, S. I. Sukhbir Singh Yadava and Dr. S. K. Shakya who conducted the postmortem examination. The trial court believing the prosecution version of the case convicted the revisionist as stated above. The appeal was dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the judgment.

The trial court in its judgment has discussed the prosecution evidence in detail and has also given reasons for coming to the conclusion that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently. The contention on behalf of the revisionist was that the accident had taken place with some other vehicle and since the tractor was found parked near the place of incident he was falsely roped in. In sole point for determination before the trial court was as to whether the accident had taken place with the tractor in question or with some other vehicle. The trial court has considered this aspect and has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the accident took place with the tractor in question when it was being driven rashly and negligently. On merits nothing can be said against the judgment of the two courts below.

It was then urged that the alleged rash and negligent act resulted in the death of the son of the first informant. He cannot, therefore, be convicted under Section 279,1. P. C, and also under Section 304A, I. P. C. This argument appears to be correct. The trial Court could not have convicted the revisionist under both the sections. His conviction in so far as it relates to Section 279, I.P.C. is set aside.

It was then urged that the sentence awarded is severe. In the facts and circumstances of the case I think the end of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to 9 months simple imprisonment as he has also been imposed a fine of Rs. 4,500.

The revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 279, I.P.C. is set aside. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to 9 months. He would be liable to pay fine as imposed by the trial court.

Revision partly allowed.