The main legal point established is that when an accused is convicted for major and minor offences of the same kind, no separate sentence need be awarded for the minor offence. The court also clarified the essential requirement of mens rea for the offence under Section 429 I. P. C.

S. R. BHARGAVA, J.

This revision was admitted on the point of sentence only. Case against revisionist Manoj Kumar was that in overzeal he did not respond to the cries of the persons sitting in the trolley attached to the tractor and drove the tractor so rashly that the trolley upturned causing death of one person and causing injuries to a he-buffalo. This case was accepted by both the lower courts. They convicted the revisionist with offences under Sections 279, 429 and 3q4-A I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 279, to rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 429 and to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 under Section 304-A I. P. C. Both the courts allowed compensation of Rs. 4,000. 00 to the heirs of the deceased from the fine.

2. It is evident from the prosecution story itself that the offence of rash and negligent driving was committed in exuberance of yough. Then it should not be forgotten that offence under Section 279 I. P. C. is of the kind of offence under Section 304-A I. P. C. and as compared to Section 304-A I. P. C it is a minor offence. When an accused is convicted both for major and minor offence of the same kind No separate sentence need be awarded to him for minor offence. For offence of mischief under Section 429 I. P. C. mens rea is essential. When damage is caused by rash and negligent driving mens rea of committing mischief is absent. I hold that the revisionist should not have been convicted with offence under Section 429 I. P. C. Looking to the nature of offence and the period which has elapsed since the offence, I think that now a lenient view is required. After being convicted and sentenced by the lower appellate court revisionist remained in Jail for more than a week. This would have relieved him from exuberance of yough. Further short term Jail sentence is not likely to serve any useful purpose.

3. Considering all the circumstances, I allow this revision h port and reduce the sentence of the revisionist to the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 3,000. 00 for offence under Section 304-A, I. P. C. No separate sentence need be recorded for offence under Section 279 I. P. C. His conviction and sentence for offence under Section 429 I. P. C. are set aside. Out of the fine realised from the revisionist sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.

4. A copy of the order be issued to the learned counsel for the revisionist on payment of usual charges today.

Partly Allowed

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document