Partly allowed

H S Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2018CRLR/221/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Revision No. 221 of 1991 partly allowed the revision filed by H S Singh. The conviction was maintained, but the sentence for rash && negligent driving causing death was reduced to the period the revisionist had already undergone in jail, subject to a deposit of a fine.

What did the court decide?

Revision partly allowed; conviction maintained, sentence reduced to period undergone; fine of Rs. 2,000 to be deposited.

H S Singh Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 221 of 1991 Revisionist :- H S Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Y S Rathore,R.C. Agrahari Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

¶4

The present revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.1.1991 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1990 whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist was partly allowed and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court was reduced from one year to six months rigorous imprisonment.

¶5

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the prosecution has failed to prove that the vehicle being driven by the revisionist was driving rashly and negligently, therefore, the conviction of the revisionist is band in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the courts below have failed to take into consideration that the deceased was a boy aged about 13 years who was riding upon the bicycle on a Highway and the trial court relied upon the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation which was totally inadmissible and hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the statement of the witnesses does not support that the revisionist was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, but the courts below have erred in holding the same in absence of any evidence. It is next submitted that the courts below did not consider the fact that the revisionist is the first offender and is entitled for the benefit of Section 3 of the U.P. First Offenders Probation Act, but the court below convicted the appellant under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. and awarded punishment of six months rigorous imprisonment.

¶6

The learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 5.4.2010 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 May 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.

¶7

Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist is on bail

¶8

and has already undergone certain period (one month three days) in jail and requested that his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the revision, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is partly allowed maintaining the conviction of revisionist, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 2,000 within one month from today, failing which the revisionist shall be arrested by the police and sent to jail for serving out the remaining sentence awarded to him.

¶11

Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Rmk.

H S Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H S Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Akshaibar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs Krishna Devi

Ram Deo and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shariful Hassan Vs State