Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 256 (HP)

CHUNI LAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-04-06

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. ACCUSED-petitioner Chuni Lal stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hamirpur, vide judgment dated 11.8.2005, passed in Police Challan No.87-II-2001, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Chuni Lal. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs.500/- in relation to offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, and undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in relation to offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month in relation to both the offences. Such findings of fact, judgment of conviction and sentence, stand affirmed by the Court of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, in terms of judgment dated 13.3.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005, titled as Chuni Lal versus State of H.P., filed by the petitioner-accused. Hence, the present revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. ON 16.9.2001, FIR No.119/2001 (Ex. PW-3/G), under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, against the petitioner alleging that on the said date he was driving Bus No. HP-47-0358, on a Highway, in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted into an accident and death of one Shri Jagar Nath. The matter was investigated. Challan was presented in the Court. Notice of accusation was put to the accused- petitioner for having committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. 4. AFTER trial, based on the evidence led by the parties, petitioner stands convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the lower Appellate Court also stands dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out insofar as the judgment of conviction is concerned. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the lower Appellate Court also stands dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out insofar as the judgment of conviction is concerned. The Courts below rightly appreciated the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 5. SIGNIFICANTLY, Shri Roshan Lal (PW-4), who is the complainant and Smt. Tripta Devi (PW-6), who was travelling in the Bus in question, have testified with regard to the negligence of the accused in driving the vehicle in question, which resulted into death of Shri Jagar Nath. 6. DR. D.R. Sharma (PW-9) has testified the factum of death of Shri Jagar Nath on account of the injuries sustained as a result of the accident. I need not, in detail, discuss the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, suffice it to hold that the independent witnesses in their unrebutted testimony have proven the essential ingredients of the charged offences. Witnesses have proved the fact that accused was driving the Bus in question in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and as such the accused caused death of Shri Jagar Nath in an accident. However, I find that on the question of sentence, keeping in view various attending circumstances, interference, at this juncture, is absolutely warranted. During trial and pendency of the appeal/revision petition, petitioner has maintained good conduct. The incident took place on 16.9.2001. The offence is no doubt grave but petitioner is frail and old man. He has liabilities in terms of upkeep of his family. In my considered view, ends of justice would be met if the quantum of substantive imprisonment in relation to both the offences, i.e. Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, is reduced and the fine is enhanced. Ordered accordingly. As such, sentence of simple imprisonment of a period of three months, in relation to offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, is reduced to imprisonment for a period of one month but the fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/-. Also, sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months, in relation to offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, is reduced to a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months but the fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. 7. Also, sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months, in relation to offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, is reduced to a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months but the fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. 7. LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of fine, in terms of trial Court judgment, already stands deposited. If not, then the entire amount, in terms of the instant judgment, be positively deposited within a period of three months from today. Also, petitioner shall concurrently serve the sentences of simple imprisonment. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender to the trial Court to serve out the sentence so awarded. 8. DECISION to reduce the sentence, in my considered view, is in the interest of justice, parties and is expedient, considering the given facts and circumstances. Ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in A.P. Raju versus State of Orissa, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 385; Paul George versus State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 185 ; B. Nagabhushanam versus State of Karnataka, (2008) 5 SCC 730 ; Manish Jalan versus State of Karnataka, (2008) 8 SCC 225 ; and Puttaswamy versus State of Karnataka and another, (2009) 1 SCC 711 , has been relied upon while taking the view in the present case. Revision petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any. A copy of this judgment be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner, free of cost.