Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 853 of 1998 Revisionist :- Ghan Shayam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajul Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Dwivedi, learned Counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision is that on 11.02.1990 at about 5:25 PM near Shahpur Tiraha accused-revisionist driver of Tractor by rash and negligent driving hit Parsuram who suffered injuries and succumbed to injuries in the hospital.
3. Record reveals that criminal case no.1590 of 1994, State versus Ghanshyam, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304- A IPC, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathurs has been registered wherein 3rd Judicial Magistrate, Mathura vide its order dated 23.02.1996 convicted and sentenced him under Section 279 IPC for two months imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, under Section 304-A IPC for one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, under Section 337 IPC for two months imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, under Section 338 IPC for six months imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- and under Section 427 IPC for two months imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-.
4. Against which criminal appeal no.10 of 1997 has been filed by the revisionist but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 06.05.1998 by Special Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura and uphold the judgment and order dated 23.02.1996. Both the impugned orders are under challenge in this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist did not press the revision on merit but he prayed that sentences awarded by the Court below may be reduced to the period already undergone. He further prayed that after a lapse of so long time, sending the accused-revisionist back to Jail would not serve the useful purpose.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist by stating that under the circumstances in which occurrence took place, sentence awarded by the courts below appears fit and proper.
7. Having heard the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire evidence available on record. I find that after a proper scrutiny of evidence trial court as well as appellate court found the accused guilty under Sections 279, 337, 338,427 and 304-A IPC and I do not find any good ground to interfere the conviction, therefore, conviction of revisionist under Sections 279, 337, 338,427 and 304-A IPC is confirmed.
8. So far as sentence of revisionist is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.
9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind that proceeding before the court below was commenced in 1990. The accused-revisionist before this court must have aged by now. There is nothing on record to show that accused-revisionist have misused the liberty of bail.
10. After lapse of long time, I do not think it proper to send the revisionist in jail again. I am of the view that if the sentences of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone with fine, it would meet the ends of justice.
11. It is ordered that the accused-revisionist is sentenced to rigours imprisonment for a period already under gone and to fine of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of three months from today. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for five months and Trial Court shall take necessary action.
12. The revision is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 I.A.Siddiqui