Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1741 of 2008 Revisionist :- Ved Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred by Ved Prakash against State of U.P. Challenging the judgement and order dated 26.06.2008 passed by Session Judge, Court No.15, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2007 and order dated 09.07.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Meerut, whereby revisionist was convicted and sentenced under sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 I.P.C. for imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs.500/- in each section.
3. According to prosecution case, F.I.R was lodged by Habib Ahmad, P.W.-1 alleging that on 09.01.1998 his brother Abdul Habib was injured in accident by driving rashly and negligently Maruti D.L. 3 CD 1001 and he received three injuries, two lacerated wounds and one swelling on leg and fracture was also found. One Imrana and Smt.Nyyar were also injured by Tata Sumo bearing No.U.P.15E 2513 by accused Ved Prakash, their injuries were found simple in nature.
4. After investigation chargesheet was submitted. Habib Ahmad, P.W.-1, Abdul Hamid, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 Head Constable Rishipal Singh, Dr.Rajiv Kumar Mullick, P.W.4, S.I.Ajay Kumar Gautam P.W.5, Julfikar P.W.6 and Shakeel P.W.-7 were examined. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and after hearing the learned counsel for both parties the impugned order was passed and appeal was dismissed on the point of conviction and sentence was reduced three months rigorous imprisonment. Hence, this revision.
5. From perusal of record it transpires that two injured witnesses Habib Ahmad, P.W.-1 and Abdul Hamid, P.W.-2 have been examined and they supported the prosecution case.
6. In the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (6) Supreme Court 526, the Court has held that deposition of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies for the reason that his presence on the scene of incident established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident.
7. In the case of Maqsoodan vs. State of U.P. (1983) 1 SCC 218, the Apex Court has held that presence of the injured witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of incident and they should normally be not disbelieved.
8. On the point of conviction, lower court has given finding. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nijjer Agra Foods Ltd., (2005) 12 SCC 502, State of Maharashtra vs. Jag Mohan Singh Kuldip Singh, 2004 (50) ACC 889 (SC) and Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107, has held that while the appellate jurisdiction is co- extensive with the original court's jurisdiction as a appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence is concerned. The revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within it's jurisdiction. A revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute it's own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted on the point of sentence alleging that the incident is of the year 1998 and the age of the revisionist at present is 70 years. The incident is accidental without any intention or motive. No fruitful purpose will be served if revisionist is sent to jail and end of justice will done if revisionist is convicted with imprisonment already undergone and fine.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that at the time of dismissal of appeal, he has served rigorous imprisonment for three months. He belongs to rural area and economic status is also very poor.
11. In this circumstances, linent view may be taken against the revisionist.
12. In the case of Ved Ram and others vs. State of U.P., 2010(68) ACC 182 wherein appellants have already remained in jail for almost eight months and on being satisfied with the period of incarceration, the Court imposed additional fine of Rs.1000/- and altered conviction from under Section 307 IPC to under section 324/149 IPC.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Kaisarbaig and others, (2018) 4 SCC 403 sentenced the appellants to the period of imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.50,000/- in addition to what has already been paid to the victim under Section 148/324/149 IPC.
14. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Kalia and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1261 has held that "we would, therefore, while upholding the conviction of Raman Kalia under Section 323 I.P.C. reduce the sentence to the period already served, which we understand is about a month and a half."
13. Supreme Court Rulling- 1 lakh Rs. fine to be reduced.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and view taken by the Apex Court as well as this Court, linent view may be taken.
15. In these circumstances, considering that the incident is of 1998 and till date 20 years have elapsed and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the revision pending, this Court finds that justice will be done if the sentence of the revisionist Ved Prakash is reduced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.1000/- under section 279 I.P.C., fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 I.P.C, fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 338 I.P.C and under Section 427 I.P.C fine of Rs.10,000/-. All the sentences shall run one by one. In case of default of payment of fine, the revisionist shall further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 I.P.C.
16. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed in view of the observations made herein above and impugned order 26.06.2008 passed by Session Judge, Meerut and the order dated 09.07.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Meerut are modified accordingly and they are punished under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 427 I.P.C. as stated in para 15 of the judgement.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 SKD