Ram Singh vs State of U.P.

S. R. Bhargava, J.—This revision has arisen from an incident of 12.1.83.

Prosecution story against the revisionist is that on the day of incident he was driving U.P. Roadways Bus No. UTI 8175 rashly and negligently. He dashed against a motorcycle from the front and thereby caused death of both the occupants of the motorcycle. The two lower courts convicted the revisionist with offences under Section 279, 304A and 427 I.P.C. The sentences awarded to the revisionist are fine of Rs. 1000.00 under Section 279 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and fine of Rs 2000.00 under Section 304A I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 2000.00 under Section 427 I.P.C. Revision was admitted on the point of sentence only.

When both the occupants had died there was no question of sentence for minor offence under Section 279 I.P.C. Offence of mischief is defined in Section 425 I.P.C. and it clearly shows that mensrea is necessary ingredient of offence of mischief. When the incident is said to be the result of rash and negligent driving which is not culpable, mensrea cannot be attributed to the driver. In the instant case lower court record was called and it does not appear that the act committed by revisionist was culpable. It is evident that the offence committed by the revisionist lacks mens rea. Hence offence under Section 427 was not made out. Sentence of revisionist for offences under Section 279 and 427I.P.C. cannot be sustained.

Conviction of the revisionist for offence under Section 304A I.P.C. must be maintained. But after lapse of 7 years, short term sentence of 9 months is not likely to serve any useful purpose. On the other hand it is argued that revisionist has already deposited Rs. 2500.00 towards fine. It is further argued that the revisionist being an employee of U.P. State Roadways corporation is apt to face disciplinary action. Considering all the circumstances of the case I think that the sentence already undergone and fine of Rs. 2500.00 under Section 304A, I.P.C, shall serve the ends of justice.

In result this revision is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of the revisionist for offences under Sections 279 and 427 I.P.C. are set aside. His sentence under Sec. 304A, I.P.C. is modified. His jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. He is sentenced to fine of Rs. 2500.00 out of the fine realised a sum of Rs. 1000.00 each shall be paid to the dependents of each of the deceased. It is made clear that the offence with which the revisionist has been convicted and senteaced is of rash and negligent driving which may not be treated as an act of moral turpitude. The departmental authorities in inflicting punishment upon the revisionist may consider the past history of the revisionist and the offence committed by him in the instant case.

Revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Revision partly allowed.