Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 258 (UTT)

Chandrapal v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-04-05

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. (i) Judgment and order dated 25.10.2016, passed in Criminal Case No. 123 of 2013, State Vs. Chandrapal, by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class/1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced as hereunder:- (i) Under Section 279 IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. (ii) Under Section 304-A IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and six months with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two months; and (ii) Judgment and order dated 22.09.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 2016, Chandrapal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and sentence awarded to the revisionist has been confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Facts, briefly stated, are as follows:- On 03.08.2008, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, when the deceased was returning to his house for his meals, a truck bearing Registration No. UP-25T-8895, being drivenby the revisionist in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, due to which, the deceased died at the spot. An FIR was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted, which is the basis of the case. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, namely, PW1 Krishna Murari, PW2 Sachin Chabbra, PW3 Amit Kumar, PW4 Madan Lal Khanna, PW5 HCMT R.D. Bhatt, PW6 Sub Inspector, R.P. Kohli, PW7 Dr. Deepak Gabriyal and PW8 Gurmeet Singh. 5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgments and orders passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore and the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the revision. 6. This revision has been admitted on the question of sentence only. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionists is a poor man. He is the only breadwinner of his family. His family is in distress. Therefore, the sentence may be reduced. 8. Hence, the revision. 6. This revision has been admitted on the question of sentence only. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionists is a poor man. He is the only breadwinner of his family. His family is in distress. Therefore, the sentence may be reduced. 8. Learned State counsel was given time to get instructions with regard to the criminal antecedents etc. of the revisionist. He would submit that nothing adverse was reported against the revisionist. 9. In the year 2014, when the revisionist was examined under Section 251 of the Code, he has revealed his age 25 years, which means, now he is around 35 years of age. The lower court record is before the Court. This incident took place in the heart of the city in Rudrapur at a crossing. 10. The sentencing is a very delicate task. While sentencing a person various factors are taken into consideration i.e. the offence, the nature, the manner in which it was committed, the offender and other attending circumstances. It is the case that the revisionist was driving the vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner and it hit the deceased at a crossing, in the mid of the city in Rudrapur. The level of care, which was required from the revisionist was not maintained by him. But, it has been stated by PW3 Amit Kumar that after the accident, the revisionist had stopped the vehicle. 11. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the sentence of the revisionist may be modified for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and it may be reduced to a period of nine months. 12. The conviction of the revisionist under Sections 279 and 304A IPC is upheld. The sentence of the revisionist under Section 279 IPC is maintained. The revisionist is sentenced under Section 304A IPC with the imprisonment for a period of 9 months. The fine remains unaltered. 13. The revision is partly allowed. 14. The impugned judgments and orders are modified to the extent, as indicated above.