1990 Supreme(Raj) 460
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharma, J.
Ram Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 234 of 1988.
Decided On : 5-03-1990
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Praveen Balwada, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S.C. Sharma, P.P.
The court considered the possibility of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and exercised discretion to release the accused on bail bond and surety.
Headnote:
304A - Conviction under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code - Affirmation of conviction and sentence, possibility of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Fact of the Case:
The accused petitioner was convicted under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code for driving a truck negligently, resulting in a fatal accident. The lower courts affirmed the conviction and imposed a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the revision petition regarding the conviction under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code. However, it considered the possibility of dealing with the case under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and in view of Section 361 Cr.PC, decided to release the accused on bail bond and surety, with a direction to be of good behavior.
Issues: Conviction under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, possibility of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and release on bail bond and surety.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, but exercised the option to release the accused on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering the absence of previous convictions and the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, and directing the release of the accused on bail bond and surety, with a condition to be of good behavior.
JUDGMENT
1. - The conviction of the accused petitioner Under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code has been affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer under his judgment dated 19-11-1988, the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days simple imprisonment have also been affirmed. The said conviction was recorded and sentence imposed on the accused person by the learned trial court under his judgment dated 4-1-1986.
2. One Mangu was run over by Truck No. RJE 8001 which the accused was driving on 1-9-1982. The courts below placed reliance on the evidence of Udai Singh PW 5 the eye witness who supported the case of the prosecution, the other two did not support and has held that the accused petitioner was the driver of the Truck and was driving the Truck sashly and negligently at the time of accident. The accused petitioner did not deny that he was driving the Truck but his case in his statement Under Section 313 Cr, PC was of bare denial. He did not examine any eye witness in defence.
3. After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner I find no merit in this revision petition so far as the conviction of accused petitioner Under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code is concerned. But it is a case which can be dealt with Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and in view of 361 Cr.PC in my opinion, there are no special reasons not to deal with the case of the accused petitioner under the aforesaid beneficent provision.
4. Consequently, I hereby partly allow this revision petition. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner Under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code in the facts and circumstances of the case and there being no previous conviction on record against the accused petitioner, I here by direct that the accused petitioner be released on his entering into a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and a surety in the like amount to receive the sentence as and when called upon during one year and in the mean time be of good behaviour. Two months time is allowed to the petitioner to furnish the bonds in the trial court. The counsel for the petitioner shall inform the accused about the result of this revision petition.Revision partly allowed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document