Ram Chandra vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Revisionist Ram Chandra was the driver of U.P. S.R.T.C. Bus No. UP 07A791. On''23.6.1992 at about 1 p.m. he accidented his aforesaid bus with a Scooter No. U.P. 015 B0400. Subsequently, the plier of the scooter Pramod Jaiswal lost his life in the hospital.

In respect of the said incident an FIR was lodged against the revisionist as Crime No. 298/92, under sections 279, 338, 427 and 304A IPC, P.S. Daurala, District Meerut.

The ensued investigation resulted in filing of the chargesheet against the revisionist and a case was registered in the Court of CJM. Meerut.

In the trial Deo Datt Sharma P.W. 1, Raj Singh P.W. 2. Ravindra Kumar P.W. 3, Punit Kumar P.W. 4, Smt. Samim Bano P.W. 5, V.K. Bajpai P.W. 6. S.I. O.S.D. Dubey P.W. 7, HC MT Ramesh Chand Tripathi P.W. 8 and S.I. Devi Ram P.W. 9 were examined by the prosecution. Out of the aforesaid witnesses Samim Bano P.W. 5 was the pillion rider of the same Scooter, which was plied by Pramod Jaiswal and she has also sustained injuries in the said incident and was admitted for a month in the hospital.

The said Samim Bano P.W. 5 supported the prosecution version in full and finding the prosecution case proved to the hilt that the CJM. Meerut vide his order dated 7.7.2004, convicted the revisionist under sections 279, 338, 427 and 304A IPC and sentenced him to one month imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/ on the first count, two month''s imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ on the second count, two month''s imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/ on the third count and three month''s imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 4000/ on the last count. Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 3000/ was ordered to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased and Rs. 1000/ was ordered to be deposited in the State Treasury. In default of payment of fine on the first three counts, revisionist was ordered to undergo 7 days further imprisonment for each of the counts and in default of payment of fine under section 304A IPC, he was directed to further undergo one month further imprisonment. It was also ordered that but for the sentence in default of payment of fine, rest of the sentences shall run concurrently.

The order for the said conviction and sentence dated 7.7.2004 was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal No. 48/2004 Ram Chandra v. State before Sessions Judge, Meerut by the revisionist as his appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Meerut, vide impugned order dated 2.5.2008. Hence this revision challenging the said conviction and sentences.

In agreement with both the sides this revision, was heard finally.

Heard Sri A.R. Dube in support of this revision, Sri Amit Dube learned AGA on behalf of the respondents.

Sri A.R. Dube did not challenge the findings on the conviction of the revisionist at all. He fairly conceded that so far as offence is concerned, it is established against the revisionist. He centred around his arguments only on the sentence of imprisonment mid contended that maximum sentence of imprisonment which has to undergo by the revisionist is three months and since the revisionist was remained in Jail for about 22 days, substantive sentence of residue period of imprisonment be altered into fine and the period of imprisonment be reduced to the period already under gone. Sri Dube contended that incident had occurred 16 years ago and since it was the negligence on the part of the revisionist that he should not be penalised with further incarceration. He further contended that compensation of Rs. 3000/, which has been ordered by the Trial Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court may be enhanced.

Learned AGA also did not seriously dispute the said submission of learned Counsel for the revisionist.

Considering the arguments of both of the sides and looking to the fact that the incident occurred 16 years ago, the revisionist has already served 22 days of imprisonment and no useful purpose will be served by allowing the revisionist to undergo further period of imprisonment, I consider it just and proper to alter the sentence part implanted on the revisionist.

In such a view, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the revisionist on all the aforesaid counts are hereby affirmed but the sentence of all the counts are altered to the period of imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs. 25,000/ cumulatively. Out of the said fine of Rs. 25,000/, Rs. 20,000/ shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased by the CJM, Meerut after noticing them. If the deceased has a widow, then the compensation shall be paid to her. In case the deceased was unmarried, then the compensation shall be paid to his either of the parents.

The revisionist is allowed two weeks'' time to deposit the said amount of fine along with the compensation with CJM, Meerut. To facilitate deposited within two weeks from today, the revisionist is directed to be released from Jail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Meerut. Both sureties shall be of family relatives of the revisionist.

In the event if the revisionist fails to deposit the said amount with the CJM, Meerut within the time allowed, the CJM, Meerut will get revisionist arrested forth with and will lodge him in Jail, till the aforesaid amount of fine and compensation is paid by him or till his conviction recorded by the Trial Court is served, which ever is earlier.

With the aforesaid direction this revision is partly allowed.