Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1956 of 2002 Revisionist :- Dhirendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhirendra Singh Rajput,Vijay Bahadur Shivhare Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 12.11.2002 passed by Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.(3), Jalaun at Orai, in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2002, (Dhirendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Criminal Case No.373 of 2000, State Vs. Dhirendra Singh, upholding and convicting and sentencing under section 279 IPC for six months rigorous imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs.500/- as well as under section 304-A IPC for 15 months rigorous imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs.1500/- and judgement/order dated 29.06.2002 passed by the First Special Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in case no.373 of 2000 and also provided in case of default of payment of aforesaid fine to go further imprisonment of three months.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that there is no specific finding in the judgement that at the time of accident, the light of the Jeep was not working rather it was light o the tractor which was not working in support of his submission counsel for the revisionist pointed out certain portion of the impugned judgement , wherein there were statements of prosecuting witnesses where they had given statement that the light of the Jeep was not functioning properly. The driver was driving very fast. It has also pointed out that there is an observation on the basis of the statements that the Jeep was collided with the tractor and the light of the tractor was switched off, and was not working.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision, but could not be disputed the aforesaid fact. It is no where mentioned that the light of the Jeep was switched off and was not functioning at the time of accident.
Learned A.G.A. has submits that the lower appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order after considering the evidence before it, hence no interference is called for by this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Lastly, it has been submitted by the counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has already undergone certain period in jail and requested that sentence may be reduced as he had already undergone in Jail. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 05.04.2010 Law Suit (SC) 180 as well as of this Court in the case of Devendra in Jail Vs. State in Criminal Revision in 2540 of 2011 decided on 31 October, 2011, Veerwati Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2010 decided on 29th May, 2012 and Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.1279 of 2005 decided on 4th August, 2014, in which, Apex Court as well as of this Court without disturbing conviction, released the accused on the basis of sentence undergone.
Learned A.G.A. has submits that the lower appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order after considering the evidence before it, hence no interference is called for by this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is partly allowed, maintaining the conviction of the revisionist, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- in place of Rs. 500/- as per punishment under section 279 IPC and Rs.15,000/- in place of Rs.1500/- as punishment awarded under section 304A IPC to the family/legal heir of the two deceased persons, who expired in the accident within two months, failing which the revisionist shall be arrested by the police to serve out the remaining sentence awarded to him.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to CJM, Jalaun for its compliance.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 PKC