Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRATYUSH KUMAR, J.
Jamal Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 1998
Decided on : 09-03-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ravi Dingar
The court has the discretion to modify the sentence based on the circumstances of the case, including the duration of litigation and the age of the appellant.
Headnote:
Conviction - Criminal Law - Section 304-A I.P.C. - [Section 304-A I.P.C.] - The court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under section 304-A I.P.C. but reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment of two years to three months, and increased the fine from Rs.30,000 to Rs.60,000, with a compensation of Rs.50,000 to the wife and dependents of the deceased. The appellant was directed to surrender within 30 days or face appropriate action.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a bus accident resulting in the death of a rickshaw puller and injuries to others. The appellant, Jamal Khan, was convicted under section 304-A I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence and increased the fine, considering the appellant's age and the duration of litigation.
Issues: Conviction under section 304-A I.P.C., modification of sentence, and compensation to the deceased's family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the appellant guilty of rash and negligent driving, affirmed the conviction, and modified the sentence based on the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under section 304-A I.P.C. was affirmed, but the sentence was reduced and the fine increased. The appellant was directed to surrender within 30 days or face appropriate action.
PRATYUSH KUMAR, J.
1. The instant appeal questions the correctness of conviction and sentence dated 24th August, 1998 passed in S.T. No.336 of 1989 (State vs. Jamal Khan), P.S. Naka Hindola, Lucknow by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, whereby he has been punished with rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.30,000/-under section 304-A I.P.C.
2. Heard Sri Ravi Dingar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. That on 8th November, 1987, at 10.45 p.m. Ramesh Kumar gave a written report at Police Station Naka Hindola stating therein that on that day at 10.00 p.m. he was coming towards Mohan Hotel. He saw a Bus No.URL 2275 coming from the side of Bans Mandi Chauraha which collided with a rickshaw, bicycle and one scooter and thereafter crashed with Jai Bharat Hotel. In the collusion his scooter UME 8473 was also damaged but he had saved himself by jumping from the scooter. When truck driver jumped out of the bus, a police party coming from a jeep caught him. The driver gave his name as Jamal Khan. One rickshaw puller died in the accident. His name was Nanhake. In the accident, one women Sangeeta and her father Chandra Shekhar Srivastava sustained injuries. The driver of the bus was driving the vehicle with excessive speed.
4. At this Check F.I.R. was scribed, Case Crime No.489 of 1987 under sections 279, 337, 304 I.P.C. was registered and investigated and chargesheet was submitted against the present appellant. The appellant stood for trial before the Court of Session. He was charged under section 304 I.P.C, which he denied.
5. In order to prove the charges, on behalf of the prosecution, besides documentary evidence, eight witnesses were examined. First informant Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, P.W.-1 proved written report Exhibit Ka-1 and described the occurrence but he refused to identify the appellant.
6. Janardan Lal Shukla, P.W.-2 owner of the hotel narrated the occurrence but claimed that in his knowledge no one was arrested on the spot and he had seen the appellant at the police station.
7. Kripal, P.W.-3 is the rickshaw puller whose rickshaw was damaged in the accident. He has supported the prosecution version. According to him, one sub-inspector arrested the driver after chasing him. He has identified the appellant in the trial court as bus driver. According to him, he had sustained injuries and he was medically examined.
8. Sunita Srivastava, P.W.-4 also narrated the incident. She has identified the appellant in the trial court.
9. Chandra Nath Sinha, P.W.-5 has also narrated the occurrence. His scooter was damaged in that accident.
10. Constable Bhanu Pratap Singh, P.W.-6 is the scribe of check F.I.R. he was proved Check F.I.R. Exhibit Ka-3 and copy of the report of the general diary Exhibit Ka-4.
11. Dr. Sudhir Pandey, P.W.-7 on 8th November, 1987 at 11.20 p.m. medically examined Sunita. He found on her person, three lacerated wounds. He has proved injury report Exhibit Ka-7.
12. Dr. S.T.Husain P.W.-8 on 8th November, 1987 at 11.50 p.m. medically examined Jamal Khan and found two abrasion on his person. He has proved the injury report of Jamal Khan Exhibit Ka 6. On the night at 11.30 p.m., he medically examined Kripal, a rickshaw puller and found four injuries on his person, three were lacerated wound, one was contusion. He has proved the injury report Exhibit Ka-8.
13. Dr. R.C.Sharma, P.W.-9 on 9th November, 1987 conducted the postmortem examination of Nanhake. During postmortem he found ten ante-mortem injuries on his person. He has proved postmortem report Exhibit Ka-9.
14. S.I. Vinod Kumar Udeniay, P.W.-10 is the investigating officer. He gave details of the steps taken in the course of investigation. He has proved inquest report Exhibit Ka-10, site plan Exhibit Ka-15 and chargesheet Exhibit Ka-16.
15. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the facts stated by the prosecution
