SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(SC) 137

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Baldevji Bhathiji Thakore, Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1975, D/- 15-2-1979.

Headnote:

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304Probation of Offenders Act – Order Of Acquittal – In this appeal by Special Leave, the appellant was convicted under S. 304A, I. P. C. and was sentenced to one years R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/- by the High Court after reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in favour of the appellant – Held, High Court has given good and cogent reasons for displacing the findings of the Magistrate that the prosecution was not able to prove the charge against the appellant – There is clear finding to show that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by rash and negligent driving – He had tried to run over the deceased while the deceased was trying to cross the road – Appellant did not make any attempt to save the deceased by swerving to the other side when there was sufficient space – Court do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. – It was said that the appellant may be treated under the Probation of Offenders Act – High Court has considered this aspect and refused to exercise its discretion and court fully agree with the view of the High Court – There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed – Appeal Dismissed

Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J.:- In this appeal by Special Leave, the appellant was convicted under S. 304A, I. P. C. and was sentenced to one years R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/- by the High Court after reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in favour of the appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the judgment of the High Court and of the Magistrate. The High Court has given good and cogent reasons for displacing the findings of the Magistrate that the prosecution was not able to prove the charge against the appellant. There is clear finding to show that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by rash and negligent driving. He had tried to run over the deceased while the deceased was trying to cross the road. The appellant did not make any attempt to save the deceased by swerving to the other side when there was sufficient space. We do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant.

2. On the question of sentence, it was said that the appellant may be treated under the Probation of Offenders Act. The High Court has considered this aspect and refused to exercise its discretion and we fully agree with the view of the High Court. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1979 SC 1327

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top