Allowed

Govind Prasad v. State

Rajasthan HC12 Apr 2014CRLR/219/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted probation to a driver convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for rash and negligent driving resulting in death. The court imposed conditions including deposit of funds as compensation to the victim's parents and submission of bonds, relying on the age of the case and lack of intoxication alleged.

What did the court decide?

Accused granted benefit of probation subject to deposit of Rs.50,000 for deceased's parents and submission of bonds; remaining sentence suspended.

Govind Prasad Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

Criminal revision petition no.219/97 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

GOVIND PRASAD V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN

¶5

S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.219/1997 under section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 13.5.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raj Samand in Criminal Appeal No.27/1996.

¶6

DATE OF ORDER 12.04.2014

¶7

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN ,J

¶8

Mr.Pradeep Shah, for the petitioner Mr.JP Bhardwaj, PP for the State

¶9

BY THE COURT

¶10

The accused Govind Prasad was convicted and sentenced by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhim in Criminal Regular Case No.86/1993 titled as State Vs. Govind Prasad under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. His appeal was decided by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand and in that Criminal Appeal No.27/1996 decided on 13.5.1997, conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the accused-petitioner Govind Prasad was

¶11

Criminal revision petition no.219/97 2

¶12

upheld as such and so the accused-petitioner Govind Prasad was supposed to suffer conviction and sentence as follows:-

¶13

1.	304A IPC	One year SI with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo ten days additional simple imprisonment.
2.	279 IPC	Fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo fifteen days SI.

¶14

Both the substantive sentences were

¶15

ordered to run concurrently.

¶16

In Criminal Revision Petition, the accusedpetitioner Govind Prasad has not challenged his conviction under Sections 304A and 279 IPC. The only prayer of the accused-petitioner is that he should be let off under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶17

In the circumstances of the case, the learned Public Prosecutor has also not seriously opposed the prayer of the accused-petitioner.

¶18

The following ruling was relied upon by the accused-petitioner:-

¶19

Criminal revision petition no.219/97 3

¶20

Manish Jalan V/s State of Karnataka 2008 SC CANDID 877 Criminal Appeal No.1066/2008 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 11.7.2008:-

¶21

In this case, the accused was convicted by the trial court under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. In his appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant to the period undergone by him during the trial but the fine amount was increased to Rupees One Lac which was ordered to be given to the mother of the deceased by way of compensation.

¶22

In the case in hand, the accused-petitioner Govind Prasad was driver of the Jeep and he has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 A of IPC for rash and negligent driving of the Jeep on a public street and his negligence unfortunately resulted into loss of a precious human life. But it is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the appellant that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

The matter is 17 years old. Looking to the mental agony suffered by the accused-petitioner during trial, now benefit of probation can be given to the accused-petitioner. Hence, it is hereby ordered that :-

¶26

(1)That the accused-petitioner Govind Prasad will deposit Rs.50,000/- in the trial court on or before 20.5.2015.

¶27

(2) That soon after depositing the amount as aforesaid, he will have to submit two bail bonds of Rs.10,000/each and a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court for three years. As per section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶28

(3)It is also ordered that the amount if deposited will be payable to the

¶29

¶30

parents of deceased child positively within two months from the date of deposit by the trial court.

¶31

Condition Nos.1 and 2 will be the conditions precedent for getting the benefit of probation and if the accused-petitioner fails to comply with any of those conditions then he will not be entitled to benefit of probation and in that case, he will have to suffer the remaining sentence as ordered on 22.10.1994 by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhem. The record of the courts below along with a copy of this judgment and the bail bonds taken from the accused-petitioner at the time of his suspension of sentence by this court be sent back within three days to the concerned courts. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

[ATUL KUMAR JAIN], J.

¶33

arti

Govind Prasad v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Prasad 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

Udailal Vs Chairman R S R T C

Sahil Pemawat Vs State

Reshma Ram Vs C.B.I.

Laxman Vs State

Baney Khan Vs State

Surender Kumar Vs State