Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 823 (RAJ)

Gopal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-09

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 25.02.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara (for short, “the Appellate Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2004, whereby the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal; and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC passed by the trial Court, reduced the sentence to two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo 10 days imprisonment for each of the offences under Sections 279 and 337, IPC; and also reduced the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo 15 days imprisonment for the offence under Section 338, IPC. The Appellate Court, however, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that on 111.1994, the petitioner was the driver of Bus No. RJB 5463, which hit the Metador Ambullance No. MIU 6678, as a result of which many persons sustained serious injuries. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner and the bus came extremely on the off-side of the road. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, vide Judgment and order dated 20.08.2002, convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279, IPC; six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337, IPC; one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 338, IPC; and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337, IPC; one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 338, IPC; and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been partly allowed by the Appellate Court vide impugned Judgment and order dated 25.02.2006. 3. At the very out set, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC and the learned Counsel has confined his arguments only to the question of quantum of sentence and submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment s and orders of the Courts below. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. I have carefully gone through the Judgment s and orders passed by the Courts below. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the offences noticed above. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, learned Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough in not assailing the conviction of the petitioner for the offences noticed above and keeping his arguments limited only on the point of quantum of sentence. 6. The accident took place on 111.1994 and since then the petitioner has been facing the protracted trial, appeal and revision. No previous conviction stands to the credit of the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail since 25.02.2006. In this view of the matter, the ends of justice would be met if while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, the substantive sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him; however enhancing the amount of fine to Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo fifteen days imprisonment. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo fifteen days imprisonment. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for all these offences is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him; however, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo fifteen days imprisonment. The petitioner is in jail. On depositing the amount of fine, he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.