Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 455 of 2001 Revisionist :- Brij Kishore Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rama Shanker Mishra,Mahendra Pratap Yadav,Ram Kesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A.-Ist for the State.
The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 13.2.2001 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Room No.19 in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1996 (Brij Kishore Sharma Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 6.2.1996 passed by Xth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Criminal Case No.1133 of 1994, Crime No.39 of 1985, under Section 279/304-A IPC, challenged by Police Station Soraon, Allahabad (State Vs. Brij Kishore) affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Xth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad dated 6.2.1996 under Sentence 279 IPC for a period of three months and under Section 304-A IPC for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment to the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that after punishment he was in jail and ultimately released on bail. He further submitted that due to non-appearance of counsel for the revisionist, this court on 6.10.2018 issued non-bailable warrant against the revisionist. He further stated that in para 7 of the recall application, revisionist is aged about 86 years old and he is not able to move anywhere and permanently laying on the bed.
On merits, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that Court below has awarded the sentence to the revisionist only on the statements of father of the deceased and one of his close friends. He further submitted that learned Court below had not relied on the statement of the doctor, who prepared the post mortem report and submitted that the injuries were not caused by the truck involved in the case. He further submitted that there is no intention to cause any injury to the deceased and on such ground revisionist is liable to be acquitted from the charges as levelled against him.
I have perused the order dated 13.2.2001 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Room NO.19, Allahabad and the order dated 6.2.1996 passed by the Xth A.C.J.M. Allahabad and also seen the provision of Sections 279 and 304- A IPC. Section 279 provides punishment of six months or with fine which may extend to 1,000/- or with both and Section 304- A provides for maximum punishment of two years, or with fine, or with both.
After going through the facts, I found no illegality or perversity in the order passed by both the Courts below.
However, considering the age of revisionist i.e. 86 years old and his physical condition, the conviction is converted into fine in place of sentence and he is awarded a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 279 IPC and Rs. 2,000/- under Section 304-A IPC.
Revisionist is directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 3,000/- within one month from today failing which revisionist shall be arrested by police and sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence awarded to him. Non-bailable warrant is recalled. Revisionist shall not be arrested for one month from today. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Junaid