Mahendra Sharma vs State of U.P.

Kundan Singh, J.—List has been revised but no one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this revision.

Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the relevant papers.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.6.1984 of I Ind Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, dismissing the Appeal No. 101 of 1984 and affirming the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279 and 338, I.P.C. and sentencing to undergo R.I. for three months and six months, respectively, with a further direction to run both the sentences concurrently, awarded by the Munsif Magistrate I Vth, Farrukhabad on 12.4.84.

On 17.7.79 at about 4.00 p.m., the applicant was driving a Tanker UTW 6224 with rash and negligently crushed the forearm of Malik Mian. The applicant was arrested at spot. A case under Sections 279 and 338, I.P.C. was registered against the applicant. On the death of the victim the case was converted into one u/s 304A, I.P.C. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicant. During the trial, the prosecution examined the witnesses. The accused denied the charge and stated that no accident took place with his Tanker. He was passing through the place of occurrence. Seeing the mob, he stopped the tanker and went to see the victim at that time he was arrested by the police and falsely implicated in the instant case. Both the courts below believed the evidence of eye-witness P.W. 1 Constable Ram Kishan Misra, who was on duty as Santari of the police station at the relevant time, and P.W. 3 Ram Prakash. The trial court believed the evidence on record and held the applicant guilty of the offence charged with and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Though he was acquitted for the offence u/s 304A as the death was not directly result of the injuries sustained during the accident. On appeal the appellate court had examined the evidence on record. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the Appellant as awarded by the trial court were affirmed in the appeal.

I have examined the evidence on record and found that both the courts below were justified in recording the conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving and causing injuries on the person of the deceased. The judgment and orders of the courts below did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The applicant was arrested at the spot. He also admitted that when he went to see the victim he was arrested by the police. I do not find any merit in this revision.

Accordingly this revision is dismissed.