Chhangur v. State of U. P — 1992 DIGILAW 742 (ALL)

ORDER Virendra Saran, J. - Chhangur son of Jagardeo has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 6-2-1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in criminal appeal No. 114 of 1981. 2. The learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the conviction of the appellant under section 304A, 279 and 427, I.P.C. and sentences of 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (in default of payment of fine) 6 months R.I. on the first count, to a fine of Rs. 100/- on the second count and to a fine of Rs. 50/- on the third count and directed that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- be paid to the father of the deceased Raju. 3. The incident took place on 4-2-1976 at about 11 A.M. The prosecution case is that the applicant was driving bus DAC 2066 and he knocked down Raju the deceased with the result he died. The applicant then drove the bus to the police station Saidpur and he dashed the bus against the boundary wall. A First Information Report was lodged by Bashir Ahmad at 11.25 A.M. 4. At the trial the prosecution examined Bashir Ahmed P.W. 1, Sahjade P.W. 2 and Mohd. Kabeer P.W. 3 and 4 other witnesses. The appellant pleaded not guilty and did not adduce any evidence in defence. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the State Counsel. 5. Both the courts below have held that the applicant was driving the bus in question rashly and negligently. I do not think that any ground is made out for interference with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. In revision a compromise alleged to have seen signed by the informant, Bashir Ahmad, has been filed. However, the offences under section 304A and under section 279 I.P.C. are not compoundable and as suck the conviction cannot be set aside on the basis of this compromise. In my opinion; it would be quite futile to send this compromise for verification. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the sentence is severe. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 4-2-1976 and since then 16 years have elapsed. The applicant has already been in jail fora short period. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 6-2-1984. He was granted bail by this court on 14-2-1984. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the sentence is severe. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 4-2-1976 and since then 16 years have elapsed. The applicant has already been in jail fora short period. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 6-2-1984. He was granted bail by this court on 14-2-1984. The applicant has also been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, on the first count, Rs. 100/-, on the second count and Rs. 50/- on the third count. In my opinion, the sentence already undergone under section 304A I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- would meet the ends of justice. So far as the second and third counts under sections 279 and 427 I.P.C. are concerned, I reduce the fine under the respective counts from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 50/- and from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 25/-. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in pursuance of this court order dated 14-2-1984, the applicant has already deposited Rs. 1,075/- in the trial court and an affidavit of Chahangur (applicant) has also been filed stating therein the said fact. Hence the applicant need not deposit any further fine in case he has already deposited Rs. 1,075/-. I maintain the order of the courts below directing that Rs. 1,000/- be paid to the father of the boy Raju, the deceased out of the fine so realised. 8. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The sentence of the applicant, under section 304A I.P.C. is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine the applicant shall undergo three months' R.I. The sentence of the applicant under section 279 I.P.C. is reduced to a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default payment of fine, 15 days R.I. The sentence of the applicant under section 427 I.P.C. is reduced from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 25/- and in default of payment thereof, he shall undergo 7 days R.I. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. In case the applicant has already deposited Rs. 1,075/-, he need not deposit any further fine, out of the fine so deposited by the applicant, a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, shall be paid to the father of the deceased Raju. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. In case the applicant has already deposited Rs. 1,075/-, he need not deposit any further fine, out of the fine so deposited by the applicant, a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, shall be paid to the father of the deceased Raju. C.J.M. Ghazipur shall summon the father of the deceased Raju and handover Rs. 1,000/- to him in his presence in the court. 9. The learned counsel C.J.M. shall also send his compliance report within three months' from today. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned C.J.M. Ghazipur for compliance. The office shall place the compliance report in my Chamber on 7-9-1992.