Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 288 (UTT)

RAJENDRA PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2010-05-07

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2001, passed by Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1998, whereby said court has affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli) in respect of offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. against the revisionist. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.01.1996, at about 03:10 P.M., near Peepalkoti, the revisionist Rajendra Prasad was driving Maruti Car, registration No. DNH 2614, rashly and negligently, and the vehicle struck with the standing truck belonging to Border Roads Organization. In the accident two persons, namely Ajay Rana and Virendra Thapliyal died. A report of said accident was lodged, and charge sheet was filed against the present revisionist Rajendra Prasad by the Investigating Officer. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, registered the criminal case No. 506 of 1996, and after giving necessary copies, he framed charge of offence punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. against the accused/revisionist Rajendra Prasad, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Yadvendra Singh, P.W.2 Pratap Singh (driver of the Border Roads Organization vehicle), P.W.3 Sub Inspector K.P. Singh and P.W.4 Ishwar Singh. The oral and documentary was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he told that it was raining at the time of accident. He further stated that when he saw the Border Roads Organization vehicle he applied the brakes, but due to the rain, vehicle slipped and dashed at the incoming vehicle of Border Road Organization from the opposite side. It is further stated by accused Rajendra Prasad in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he himself suffered injuries. He did not deny that two persons died in the accident. However, he alleged that he was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. No evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties found that offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. were proved against the revisionist. He did not deny that two persons died in the accident. However, he alleged that he was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. No evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties found that offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. were proved against the revisionist. After hearing him on the two charges, the trial court sentenced the convict (present revisionist) to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment under Section 279 of I.P.C., and six months simple imprisonment under Section 304-A of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said order dated 15.12.1998, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli in Criminal Case No. 506 of 1996, the convict preferred Criminal Appeal Nol. 20 of 1996, the convict preferred Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1998 before the Sessions Judge, Chamoli, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.04.2001. Hence, this revision. 4. Admittedly, the accident had taken place in the present case. It is also not disputed by the revisionist that he was driving vehicle registration No. DNH 2614. It is also not disputed that two persons in the vehicle driven by him, died. Revisionist’s case is that he was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, but there is sufficient evidence adduced by P.W.2 Pratap Singh, driver of the Border Roads Organization vehicle registration No. 92E 59383. He has stated that the accused/revisionist was driving rashly and negligently the vehicle No. DNH 2614. This witness has further told that when he saw the vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by the accused/revisionist, he stopped his vehicle (Border Roads Organization Vehicle) and on standing vehicle the accused/revisionist dashed Maruti car registration No. DNH 2614. The photographs of the site of the accident which are proved by P.W.5 Ishwar Singh clearly show that the Border Roads Organization vehicle was on left side of the road, and the accused had got dashed his vehicle by taking the vehicle to the wrong side (right side). 5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the trial court or by the appellate court in assessing the evidence, and holding that accused Rajendra Prasad drove vehicle DNH 2614, rashly and negligently and dashed with the Border Roads Organization vehicle, and in the accident two persons lost their lives. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the trial court or by the appellate court in assessing the evidence, and holding that accused Rajendra Prasad drove vehicle DNH 2614, rashly and negligently and dashed with the Border Roads Organization vehicle, and in the accident two persons lost their lives. However, on the point of sentence, this Court is of the view that since the accused/revisionist had been in jail for a period of more than one week after the appeal was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is modified to the imprisonment already undergone and by directing the revisionist/convict to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of the fine he shall undergo three months imprisonment under Section 304-A of I.P.C. The punishment under Section 279 of I.P.C. is also reduced to the imprisonment already undergone. 6. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of affirming the judgment and order passed by the courts below on the point of conviction against the accused/revisionist Rajendra Prasad, relating to offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C., but the sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, is reduced to imprisonment already undergone under Section 279 of I.P.C. and sentence is modified under Section 304-A of I.P.C. to the period of imprisonment already undergone and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid within a period of one month from today. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo three months further imprisonment, in addition to the imprisonment already undergone. Let the lower court record be sent back so that this order is complied with by the court concerned.