Partly allowed

Jag Mohan Singh v. State

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2018CRLR/1157/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court maintained the conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death but reduced the imprisonment to the period already undergone and ordered compensation.

What did the court decide?

Impersonment reduced to period already undergone; fine/compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded to victim's father.

What the court decided

Jag Mohan Singh Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 9.8.2018 Delivered on 30.8.2018

¶3

Court No. - 41

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1157 of 1993

¶5

Revisionist :- Jag Mohan Singh Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- N.L. Pandey, Sri Brahma Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A

¶6

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Brahma Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Kaushlesh Prasad Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record. 2. This criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against judgment and order dated 16.8.1993 passed by sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 1992(Jagmohan vs. State of U.P.) dismissing the appeal and confirming judgment and order dated 23.10.1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate-1, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Case No. 1907/9/92(State vs. Jagmohan), Case Crime No. 124/83 Police Station Purchapar, District Muzaffarnagar, convicting under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and sentencing accused revisionist to undergo 3 months' R.I. under section 279 IPC and one year R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- under section 304-A IPC; in case of default in payment of fine, three months' R.I. directing all the sentences to run concurrently. 3. According to prosecution case, on 7.9.1983 informant Chandu, his sister Chandrawati, mother-in-law Kalyani, sister-in-law(Sali) Urva and sister-in-law(Bhawaj) were returning from Hardwar after performing immersion of ashes of his brother. They were travelling by UPSRTC bus No. UTL 5841 and were coming to Muzaffarnagar. When the bus reached at a distance of 100 to 150 years ahead of police station Chhapar that bus went out of order. The passengers came down the bus. Km. Mala, aged six years, daughter of the complainant, also came down and went with her father for taking water on the other side of the road. In the meantime private bus No.

¶8

¶9

D.L.P. 6863 came from the side of Muzaffarnagar which was being driven rashly and negligently. It was at about 4 P.M. that bus gave a push to Km. Mala. She sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Complainant Chandu and several other passengers captured the driver of the bus who told his name Jag Mohan(revisionist in this case). Case was registered against revisionist under Section 279, 304-A IPC. Post mortem of deceased Mala was conducted. She received nine antemortem injuries. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted. Charges were framed and prosecution examined P.W.-1 Chandu, P.W.-2 Smt. Urva, P.W.-3 Dr. Mahipal Singh,, P.W.-4 Shyam Lal, P.W.-5 Constable Madan Pal Singh, P.W.6 Kaptan Singh (Investigating Officer).

¶10

Statement of accused person was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing parties trial Court convicted accused revisionist under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 279 IPC and one year R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- under section 304-A IPC; in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Out of fine, Rs.500/- was directed to be paid to father of deceased Km. Mala and all the sentences to run concurrently. Appeal filed against judgment of trial Court was dismissed. Hence this revision.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that he does not want to argue on the point of conviction and submitted that the incident is of year 1983, 35 years have elapsed, revisionist is now 67 years old(for age proof learned counsel has submitted certificate dated 25.6.2018 of Rita Tyagi, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Falauda, Vikas Khand Purkaji( Muzaffarnagar) and no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him to jail. It is further submitted that revisionist is having no criminal history and he is ready to deposit fine before trial Court/appellate Court, hence lenient view may be taken against revisionist and he may be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶12

¶13

Learned AGA opposed the prayer but on this point he did not raise any argument that the case is very old and the revisionist is also old aged person, hence a lenient view may be taken.

¶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."

¶15

In the case of Manish Jalan vs. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) G.L.H. 332 The Apex Court did not interfere with the conviction of accused under Section 279 and 304-A IPC in view of filing of an affidavit by the mother of victim that she was not keen to have the accused(convict) punished and she would be satisfied with the awarding of compensation and altered the sentence by reducing to the period already undergone with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs. One lakh) with a direction to pay to the mother of the victim.

¶16

In the instant case the revisionist has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public road and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of precious human life. But it is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the revisionist that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is, undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harsher punishment.

¶17

Having regard to all above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone but in addition thereto, the revisionist should be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the father of deceased Km. Mala by way of compensation.

¶18

Accordingly, the conviction of the revisionist Jag Mohan Singh

¶19

¶20

under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is maintained because there is concurrent finding of both the Courts and view taken by the Court below is possible view, and no argument was made on this issue by the learned counsel for the revisionist. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) under section 279 and 304-A IPC. The revisionist shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) within two months and that amount shall be released in favour of father of the deceased, namely, Chandu(complainant), by way of compensation within three months from today. If the revisionist fails to pay the same amount within the stipulated time, the same shall be recovered as per the procedure prescribed under Section 431 Cr.P.C. and be paid to Chandu(complainant and father of deceased Km. Mala.

¶21

The revision is partly allowed .

¶22

Copy of this judgment and order be transmitted to the Court concerned within seven days for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within three months, which shall be kept on record.

¶23

Order Date :- 30.8.2018 P.P.

Jag Mohan Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Jag Mohan Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nasima and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ghaffor Vs State and Others

Jog Pal Singh and Another Vs IV Asj and Ohters

Gulsher Vs State of U.P.

Badlu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others