Judgement Reserved On 22.02.2019 Judgement Delivered On 26.04.2019 In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1069 of 2010 Revisionist :- Atamdas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- K.D. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
List has been revised. Heard Shri J.K. Upadhyay holding brief of Shri K. D. Tiwari learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. This criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred agaisnt the judgment and order dated 06.03.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1, Mahoba in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2006 (Atamdas Vs. State of U.P.) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated 19.10.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Mahoba in Criminal Case No. 695 of 1997 (State Vs. Aatmdas and others) Case Crime No. 197 of 1992, Police Station- Kulpahar, Distrcit Mahoba convicting the revisionst accused Atamdas to undergo six months simple imprisonment under Section 304A I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in case of default of payment of fine one month simple imprisonment.
3. In short proseuction case is that electric wire connection from main power line to the private tube well of the revisionst accused was drawn negligently. High power electric connection was drawn at a low level with the help of wooden pole. On 19.12.1992 deceased Ayodhya was coming from the field to his house with Karvi (plant of Jwar) and when he reached near the well of Seelam Kachchi, the wire level was very low which touched him causing his death due to electric shock. On the written report of watchman Amar Singh Case Crime No. 197 of 1992 was registered against the revisionst accused in police station Kulpahar, District- Mahoba.
4. During investigation of this case it came into light that the electric wire connection was drawn by Lakhan and Ganeshi to the private tube well of accused revisionst Atamdas illegally. In post mortem of the deceased Ayodhya it is opined by the doctor that cause of death was shock due to electric burn. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against Lakhan and Ganeshi.
5. Prosecution examined PW-1 Amar Singh (Informant) PW-2 Ramesh Kumar, PW-3 Smt. Sarsatiya, PW-4 Mohan Lal, PW-5 Riyajuddin.
6. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has submitted some document in his defence. Learned trial court convicted revisionist accused Atamdas under Section 304A I.P.C. sentencing six month imprisonment and Rs. 1000/- fine and in default of payment of fine one month simple imprisonment. Accused Lakhan and Ganeshi were acquitted from the charges framed against them. Revisonist accused filed appeal no. 39 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge which was dismissed by the court. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order of the courts below this revision has been preferred.
7. Learned counsel for revisionst contended that prosecution was failed to prove his case beyond doubt. Revisionist is presently about 72 years oldman having no criminal history. The punishment awarded is too severe. Lenient view may be taken in this case.
8. Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the courts below.
9. In this case the trial court has found the accused- revisionist Atamdas guilty of Section 304A I.P.C. judgment and order is well discussed and based on evidence on record and this judgment has been confirmed by the appellate court. In revision only legality and impropriety of the judgment and order of the court below is to be seen. Deceased of this case had died due to electric burn shock caused by negligent electric wire connection of the tube well of the revisionst-accused. The accused has taken the defence that electric connection was legal which was denied by the prosecution. The document filed in support of the defence was not proved in accordance with the provision of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, there was no illegality in findings of the courts below that the said electric connection of the revisionist was found to be illegal.
10. It has been argued by the counsel for the revisionst that the accused-revisionst is presently about 72 years oldman having no criminal history and a lenient view may be taken by the court.
11. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the revisionst but on this point he did not raise any objection that case is very old and revisionist is also a very old person.
12. Perusal of record shows that this incident is of 1992 and at the time of recording the statement of the revisionist under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 18.08.2006 the accused-revisionst was about 60 years old. Thus presently he is more than 70 years oldman. Having regard to all above facts the court is of the opinion that end of Justice would be met if sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone but in addition thereto revisionist should be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the wife of the deceased PW-3 Sarsutiya.
13. Accordingly the conviction of the revisionist Atamdas under Section 304A I.P.C. is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The revisionst shall deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- withint three months and that amount shall be released in favour of wife of the deceased namely PW-3 Sarsutiya by way of compensation. If revisionist fails to pay the said amount within stipulated period, the same shall be recovered as per procedure prescribed under Section 431 Cr.P.C. and be paid to the wife of the deceased.
14. Accordingly, revision is partly allowed. Copy of the judgment and order as well as lower court record be transmitted to the court below for the necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 26.04.2019 (Anil Kumar-IX, J.)
Sharad/-