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
7 paragraphs · 373 wordsPrafula C. Pant, J
This revision is filed against the judgment and order dated 7.4.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-V, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 35/98, whereby the said court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 5.8.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun in Case No. 627 of 1996, relating to conviction of the accused revisionist on the charge of offences punishable u/s 279 & 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year on each counts respectively. However, the revisionist was acquitted of the charge of offence punishable u/s 427 IPC.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.
It is a case of rash and negligent driving by the accused revisionist, in which the brother of the complainant received injuries in an accident on 31.12.1993 at about 9.30 pm, when the truck No. U.R.M. 8226, which was being driven by the revisionist, dashed the scooter No. P.I.P. 4154, which was being driven by the brother of the complainant. The injured was taken to Doon Hosppital, where he succumbed to his injuries.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist has not pressed the revision on the point of conviction, which was affirmed by the appellate court. It is only prayed on behalf of the revisionist that in view of the fact that the incident is more than 17 years old and revisionist is sole bread earner of his family and he has already undergone about two weeks in jail, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone, and the amount of fine may be enhanced.
Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel for the State, in the above circumstances of the case, the conviction of the revisionist u/s 279 & 304A IPC, recorded by trial court, is affirmed, but the sentence awarded against the revisionist is reduced to the period already undergone, and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which he shall undergo further one month imprisonment.
With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the revision stands disposed of. Let the lower court record be sent back.