Honble SAXENA, J. — This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 21.03.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer, whereby he dismissed petitioners appeal and maintained his conviction for the offences under Sec. 304 A and 279 IPC and sentence for six months simple imprisonment and three months simple imprisonment respectively recorded by learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, by his judgment dated 3.12.94.

(2). Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 25.12.1988 at about 7 PM, petitioner while driving truck No. RJC 4903 on the Barmer- Sindhari Road rashly and negligently hit the cycle, which deceased Chatarsingh aged about 35 years, was driving and caused injury to the latter, who died instantaneously on the spot. On the report of PW 6 Veersingh, FIR Ex.P-5 was drawn at Police Station, Barmer at 7.30 PM on the same day. After usual investigation, the police submitted the challan before learned trial Magistrate against the petitioner for the offences under Sec. 279 and 304A IPC. The petitioner denied the indictment and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The petitioner in his plea recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. However he did not adduce any evidence in defence. After trial, the learned Magistrate by his judgment dated 3.12.94 convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner indicated above and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

(3). I have heard Mr. J.S. Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rathore learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the lower court.

(4). Mr. J.S. Chaudhary has rightly not challenged the concurrent findings of fact of the lower court as well as petitioners conviction for the offences under Sec. 279 and 304-A IPC, which stand well proved beyond any reasonable doubt, from the evidence recorded in this case. The only contention of Shri Chaudhary is that the petitioner is of 60 years of age, that he has been facing the trial since December 1988 and thus undergone huge mental agony and harassment. The petitioner has also been under detention for a period of 1 month and 5 days. Shri Chaudhary has, therefore, prayed that petitioners sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

(5). On the other hand, Shri Rathore, the learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that there are no mitigating circumstances in this case and as such the quantum of punishment imposed on him is not excessive. He has further contended that Chatarsingh has lost his life and his family members have been left without a bread earned.

(6). I have given my thoughful consideration to the rival submissions.

(7). In Jagdish Chander vs. State of Delhi (1), the drivers of a truck and an auto-rickshaw were both responsible for the collision that took place between their vehicles before the auto-rickshaw dashed against a child resulting in his death. The incident had occurred about 3 years back. The apex court taking in view aforesaid mitigating circumstances reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 6 months to the period of three weeks of imprisonment already undergone by the accused.

(8). In Nandballabh Pant vs. State (Union Territory of Delhi) (2), the accused was convicted under Sec. 304A IPC and sentenced to 2 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case Supreme Court reduced the imprisonment to one month and enhanced fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further directed that amount so recovered be paid to the deceaseds widow by way of compensation.

(9). In Kamu Khan vs. State of Raj. (3), accused was found guilty for the offence under Sec. 304 A IPC. This court taking into consideration the fact that the incident was about 9 years old and that the accused had remained in custody for eight days, reduced his sentence to the period already undergone by him

Click Here to Read the rest of this document