IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 606 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI ==========================================================

==========================================================

TEJRAV UTTAMRAV RANIT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS ARTI SAVALIYA for MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 14/02/2024 CAV JUDGMENT

1. Present revision application u/s 397 r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioner – accused being aggrieved with the judgment and order rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2007 by the Ld. 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat dated 22.11.2012 confirming the judgment and order of conviction & order of sentence passed by Ld. JMFC, Mandvi dated 21.7.2007 passed in Criminal Case No. 162/2005, whereby the petitioner - org. Accused was convicted for offences punishable u/s. 279, 337 & 304-A r/w 338 of the IPC and respectively sentence for (i) simple 'imprisonment of 06 months and fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 01 month in case of in default of payment of fine, (ii) simple imprisonment of 3 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 01 month in case of default of payment of fine and (iii) simple imprisonment of one and half years with fine of Rs. 2000/- with further S.I. of 06 months in case of default of payment of amount of fine, under the said offences. The petitioner was also convicted for the offence puinishable u/s 184 of the MV Act and sentenced for simple imprisonment of 2 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 01 month in case of default of payment of fine and simple imprisonment of 3 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- and further S.I. of 03 months in case of default of payment of fine as far as offence punishable u/s 185 of the MV Act. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the present accused was driver of SRP Group - 10 Roopnagar Valia and he along with his staff member, on the date of the incident went to Songadh Treasury office in a vehicle bearing No. GJ-16 G-393and at the time of returned from Songadh to Valia, on Ukai Mandvi road at about 5.30 hours the accused draw the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and in a drunk condition and he lost the control over the vehicle and the vehicle was dashed with the tree and one Raju Prasad Aahir sitting in the said vehicle died on the spot and one Joraram Bisnoy died during the treatment and other persons of the staff sitting the vehicle sustained injuries.

3. Charge was framed. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case was returned for recording the prosecution evidence. In all, the prosecution has examined total 13 witnesses, as also produced the 11 number of documentary evidence. The learned trial Court having appreciated the said evidence recorded the finding as noted in the judgment culminated in conviction as stated supra followed by imposition of punishment as above, which has been unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate Court and thus present revision is filed.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the concurrent judgments of the courts below would submit that the the learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The learned Courts below could have kept the distance between the rash and ne