Partly allowed

Shri Audumber Tari Presently in Custody v. State, through Public Prosecutor

Bombay HC7 Nov 2009CRIR/56/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa set aside an impugned judgment sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment for offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC. The court enhanced the fine to Rs. 20,000, awarded Rs. 15,000 as compensation to the injured victim, and ordered the petitioner's release after depositing the balance fine.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; petitioner sentenced to pay Rs. 20,000 fine (Rs. 15,000 to victim); balance fine deposit secures release.

Shri Audumber Tari Presently in Custody Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 56/2009 .

¶3

Mr. Adumbar Tari ….... Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Goa through Public Prosecutor .….... Respondent.

¶6

Mr. D. Gaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM :- U. D. SALVI, J. DATE : 7 th November, 2009

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard.

¶11

2. Perused the petition and the impugned judgments.

¶12

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

¶13

Trial Court did not take into consideration the material

¶14

defence evidence revealing the fact that the accident in question had taken place due to natural factors and not due to

¶15

rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner/accused.

¶16

4. Learned Public Prosecutor countered this

¶17

submission on the strength of observations made in the impugned judgments. she submitted that the defence version

¶18

¶19

was purely an after thought which does not have roots any where in the record.

¶20

5. At this stage the petitioner submits that he has already undergone 12 days imprisonment roughly amounting to half of the sentence of imprisonment ordered to be suffered by him and the petitioner is willing to suffer additional monetary penalty instead of balance sentence of simple imprisonment and such monetary penalty can be used for compensating injured victim in some measure. State does not oppose to this suggestion. Learned Public Prosecutor Ms. Coutinho submitted that it is necessary to hear the injured victim PW2 Bhimappa Hanumant Talwar in that regard.

¶21

6. PW2 Bhimappa Hanumant Talwar is present in the Court. He submits that he has suffered monetary loss due to the injuries sustained by him due to the accident to the tune of over Rs.1,00,000/- and he has nothing personally against the petitioner/driver and therefore appropriate orders serving ends of justice may be passed.

¶22

7. On instructions, learned Advocate Mr. D. Goankar, for the petitioner makes a statement that the

¶23

¶24

offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident in question and the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the victim to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- out of his pocket and the rest compensation can be duly claimed by the victim by making a claim petition impleading the insurance company. He further makes a statement that the petitioner undertakes to furnish to the victim the insurance details within a week.

¶25

8. A copy of the impugned Judgment and Order

¶26

dated 30.5.2009 annexed to the petition discloses that the following order has been passed by the learned J.M.F.C., "B"

¶27

Court, Ponda.

¶28

“Accused is sentence to simple

¶29

imprisonment of 10 days for offence punishable under section 279 of Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 15days.

¶30

Accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment of one month for offence punishable under section 338 of Indian Penal

¶31

¶32

Code and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default undergo simple imprisonment of 10days. Sentence to run concurrently.

¶33

Fine when deposited by the accused, Rs.1,500/- to be given to the injured, PW2, as compensation and Rs.500/- to be forfeited to the State.”

¶34

The parties submit that fine amount of Rs.2000/payable under the said Order has already been deposited/paid by the petitioner in the Trial Court.

¶35

9. Considering these facts and circumstances substantial justice can be done if the petition is admitted and disposed of with the following order:-

¶36

a. Admit. Service of notice is waived.

¶37

b. Judgment/order dated 30.5.2009 sentencing the petitioner is set aside.

¶38

c. The petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo

¶39

simple imprisonment for a period already gone through and shall pay fine of Rs.20,000/- on both counts-section 279 and 338

¶40

of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default to undergo simple

¶41

¶42

imprisonment of 20 days.

¶43

d. The petitioner shall deposit the balance amount of fine of Rs. 18,000/- with this Court and amount of Rs. 15,000/therefrom shall be paid to the victim PW2 Bhimappa Hanumant Talwar as and by way of compensation.

¶44

On the deposit of entire fine amount letter for release of petitioner be issued to the Jailor, Sada Jail, Vasco accordingly.

¶45

Authenticated copy to be furnished to the

¶46

petitioner.

¶47

Criminal revision application is disposed off

¶48

accordingly.

¶49

U. D. SALVI, J.

¶50

vn*

Shri Audumber Tari Presently in Custody v. State, through Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Audumber Tari Presently in Custody v. State, through Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Balkrishna Puno Naik (Deceased) through Lr'S Vs the Communidade of Kundaim through Procurador and 2 Ors.

Fallary Enterprises through Partner Chinmay G. Fallary Vs Sandip Enterprises through Proprietor Sandip Agaskar

Crompton Greaves Limited through Attorney T. S. Thiraviam Vs Shri. Kantibhai and Anr.

Shri Audumber Tari Presently in Custody Vs State, through Public Prosecutor

Shri Babi Janu Fale Present Sentenced at Central Jail Aguada, through His Brother Vs State of Goa and 2 Ors.

State through Iva Fernandes Vs Shri. Selvom Athisavem and Anr.