Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 174 (UTT)

Shivendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-03-07

LOK PAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2006 as well as the judgment and order dated 10.11.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet in Criminal Case No.253 of 2001 State vs. Shivendra Singh, whereby courts below have convicted the accused-revisionist under Section 304-A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Accused-revisionist has been further convicted u/s 279 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500. Accused-revisionist has been further convicted u/s 337 of IPC and has been sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500/-. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that a report was handed over to Patwari Quarla by one Sri Madan Singh with the allegations that on 01.12.2000 at about 11 pm, Jeep no.01-5599 was coming from Dabhara to Quarala with passengers. At Srinagar, vehicle met with an accident in which the passengers and the revisionist-accused got injured. It is alleged that the vehicle was being driven by the revisionist-accused. After registering the case, Patwari went to the spot. One person Bache Singh was brought to hospital where he was declared dead. Patwari conducted investigation and on completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the revisionist-accused. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined PW1 Madan Singh, PW2 Pratap Singh, PW3 Keshar Singh, PW4 Ramesh Arya and PW5 Manorath Lakhchaura. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the revisionist-accused were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations made against him. After hearing the parties and on perusal of evidence, trial court convicted and sentenced the revisionist-accused as above. Feeling aggrieved, revisionist-accused preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Almora, which also got dismissed by the judgment and order impugned. 3. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the revisionist would confine his argument qua quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the incident relates to the year 2000 and almost 18 years have passed since then. Feeling aggrieved, revisionist-accused preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Almora, which also got dismissed by the judgment and order impugned. 3. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the revisionist would confine his argument qua quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the incident relates to the year 2000 and almost 18 years have passed since then. Revisionist is aged about 71 years and is facing mental agony due to the pendency of the criminal case against him. He would also submit that the revisionist has remained in jail for about one and a half month. In such circumstances, learned counsel would submit that lenient view may be taken to reduce his sentence. He, however, would submit that if the Court finds desirable, fine awarded by the trial court, may be enhanced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 5. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the courts below. The trial court as well as the appellate court has rightly convicted the revisionist under the aforesaid sections. The conviction of the revisionist is, therefore, affirmed. Now, this Court has to consider the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence only. 6. No minimum punishment is prescribed under Section 304-A IPC. For ready reference, Section 304A is reproduced hereunder: 304A. Causing death by negligence.-Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh and others vs. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 6 SCC 404 and others has interfered with the order of High Court, by modifying respective jail sentences of three accused to that already undergone, while enhancing fine amount awarded by High Court, and also, acquitting the fourth. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder: “14. This we are inclined to do for the following reasons: 14.1. First, the incident is of 1998 and we are in 2018. In other words, it is now almost 20 years have passed that this litigation is pending in various Courts. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder: “14. This we are inclined to do for the following reasons: 14.1. First, the incident is of 1998 and we are in 2018. In other words, it is now almost 20 years have passed that this litigation is pending in various Courts. 14.2. Second, there were seven injuries noticed by the doctor on the body of injured-Tej Singh but the injuries noticed were not very serious in nature as would be clear from the Doctor’s report mentioned above. 14.3. Third, Tej Singh survived leaving no disability much less permanent on his body due to causing of the injuries and lived for twenty years after the date of alleged incident and died recently in last week as was stated by learned counsel for the appellants. 14.4. Fourth, all the appellants(accused) have undergone almost one year of jail sentence including remission out of the total jail sentence awarded by the High Court except appellant No.2 - Suresh(A-2), who underwent around three months. 14.5. Fifth, all the appellants were first offender and were not found involved in any criminal activity in the last 20 years, though remained on bail throughout and lastly, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are reported to be in Government Service.” 8. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence as well as in view of the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh (supra), this Court is also of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the revisionist to jail after a lapse of 18 years of the incident, as such the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. 9. Accordingly, revision is partly allowed by affirming the conviction recorded by the courts below under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 of IPC. However, for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced for the period of sentence undergone alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/- which will be deposited by him before the trial court within two months from today. The revisionist will be entitled to adjustment of the fine already deposited by him, if any. 10. Lower court record be sent back.