Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 322 (UTT)

Rotash @ Rohtash v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-05-09

LOK PAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2019, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital, in Criminal Appeal no. 20 of 2018, Rotash @ Rohtash vs State of Uttarakhand, whereby the conviction and sentence awarded against the revisionist by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital, vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2006, in criminal case no. 190 of 2015 has been affirmed. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that complainant Jakir Hussain lodged a report with police station Ramnagar, alleging therein, that on 21.12.2014 when his brother Mohd. Nazir was returning to his house from Nai Basti Gularghati towards Ramnagar Bazar, at about 01:40 P.M., a truck, bearing registration no. U.K. 06 C.A./3090, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit Mohd. Nazir (brother of complainant), Bilal Raza, Anand Singh, Bhuwan Chandra, Rihan Raza and Ram Kishan, as a result of which brother of the complainant and Bilal Raza died on the spot and the vehicles on which they were riding got badly damaged. Complainant has named Rohtash s/o Changa, r/o Subhash Nagar, Bazpur was driving the truck involved in the accident. 3. On the basis of said report, FIR no. 374 of 2014 was registered against the accused-revisionist in respect of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A, 427 of IPC at P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused-revisionist in respect of selfsame offences. Charge in respect of selfsame offences were framed against the accused-revisionist. As many as 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, in order to prove its case. In reply to the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the entire evidence on record, trial court convicted the accused-revisionist under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A, 427 of IPC. The accused-revisionist was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of IPC; six months rigorous imprisonment each along with fine of Rs. 500/- each under Sections 337, 338 and 427 IPC and one years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304A of IPC. The accused-revisionist was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of IPC; six months rigorous imprisonment each along with fine of Rs. 500/- each under Sections 337, 338 and 427 IPC and one years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304A of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the court below. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the convict preferred criminal appeal. The appellate court did not find favour with the convict-revisionist and maintained the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. Hence, present criminal revision. 6. Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the revisionist would confine his argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the incident pertains to the year 2014. Since then, 05 years have elapsed and the revisionist is consistently facing mental agony due to the pendency of the criminal case against him. He would also submit that the revisionist is in jail since 25.03.2019. In such circumstances, leaned counsel for the revisionist would submit that lenient view may be taken in respect of the revisionist as this is the first incident at the hands of the revisionist and the same was not intentional as there was no enmity between the parties and prayed that the sentence awarded against him be reduced. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 8. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and after considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground for interference in the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below. Courts below have rightly convicted the revisionist in respect of the offences for which he was charged. 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. 9. No minimum punishment is prescribed under Section 304A IPC. For ready reference, Section 304A of IPC 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.” 10. For ready reference, Section 304A of IPC 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.” 10. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by sending the revisionist to jail after a lapse of 05 years of the incident and also keeping in view the fact that it was the first incident committed at his hands, as such, the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist but the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only). 11. Accordingly, criminal revision is partly allowed by affirming the conviction recorded by the courts below under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A and 427 of IPC. However, for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced to the period already undergone along with a fine of Rs.50,000/-, which will be deposited by him before the trial court within 60 days from today. The revisionist will be entitled to adjustment of 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. 12. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court forthwith for compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.