Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 306 (UTT)

VINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-05-03

LOK PAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2019 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani passed in criminal appeal no. 122 of 2016 and judgment and order dated 17.08.2016 passed by Ist Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani in Criminal case no. 614 of 2014 whereby both the courts below have convicted the revisionist under sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment under section 279 IPC with fine of Rs. 200/- and one year rigorous imprisonment under section 304-A IPC with fine of Rs. 1000/-. Both the sentenced are directed to be run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Taamradhwaj (deceased) was working as helper in the vehicle (dumper) of Jafar Khan, bearing registration no. UA07-D 8798. On 05.06.2013 deceased along with the driver (revisionist) went to Jagdamba Stone Crusher to collect the material; when he went ahead, the driver of the vehicle, who was allegedly drive the vehicle rashly and negligent hit the deceased due to which he died on the sport. Brother of the deceased lodged the FIR, and after investigation charge sheet under section 279 and 304 A IPC has been filed against the revisionist. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined P.W. 1 Bhuwnesh, P.W.2 Gangacharan, P.W.3 Dr. T.D. Rakholia and P.W. 4 Shri Chandra Singh Adhikari. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the revisionist accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the allegations made against him. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence, the trial court has convicted the revisionist accused as above. Feeling aggrieved, revisionist accused preferred appeal before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani which was also got dismissed by judgment and order impugned. 3. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses and also evidence on record. This Court finds that courts below have committed no illegality in convicting the revisionist accused. 4. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the revisionist accused would confine his argument qua quantum of sentence only. He would contend that revisionist accused is languishing in jail from the date of passing of the judgment by the appellate court and also remained in jail during trial. 4. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the revisionist accused would confine his argument qua quantum of sentence only. He would contend that revisionist accused is languishing in jail from the date of passing of the judgment by the appellate court and also remained in jail during trial. 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. 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 submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist on point of sentence. 6. No minimum punishment is prescribed under section 304A IPC. For ready reference, section 304A IPC is extracted 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 extent to two years, or with fine, or with both." 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that sentence awarded to the revisionist accused deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 15,000/- 8. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed so far as the conviction of the revisionist under section 279 and 304-A IPC is concerned. However, the sentence awarded against the revisionist is reduced to the period already undergone in jail along with fine of Rs.15,000. With this modification in the sentence, the revision stands disposed of. The revisionist will be entitled to adjustment of the fine already deposited by him, if any. In case of failure to deposit the fine as directed above, sentence recorded by the courts below shall stand revived. 9. Lower court record be sent back.