Allahabad High Court
Vijai Narain Singh vs State Of U.P. on 23 May, 2012
Bench: Ravindra Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 98 of 2003
Petitioner :- Vijai Narain Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- R.B.S.Rathaur
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, holding the brief of Sri R.B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2005 passed by learned VI-Addl. Sessions Judge, Raebarely in criminal appeal No. 17 of 1995 whereby the appeal has been partly allowed for the offence under section 123 and 114 Motor Vehicle Act but the order of the conviction passed by the trial court under sections 279 and 304-A IPC has been confirmed.
From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the revisionist has been convicted by the learned II Addl. C.J.M. Raebareli in criminal case No. 1885 of 1993 for the offence under section 279 IPC and sentenced for three months imprisonment, convicted under section 304-A IPC and sentenced for six months RI with a find of Rs. 1,500/-, in default of payment of fine the revisionist shall further undergo two months imprisonment and under section 123 Motor Vehicle Act he has only sentenced with a fine of Rs. 500/-, under section 114 Motor Vehicle Act sentenced with a fine of Rs. 400/-. The order dated 3.2.1995 passed by learned II Addl. C.J.M. Raebareli was challeged by the revisionist by way of filing the criminal appeal No. 17 of 1995, the same was partly allowed on 3.3.2003 by learned VI- Addl. Sessions Judge, Raebareli by which the revisionist has been acquitted for the offence under section 123 and 114 Motor Vehicle Act but the order of the learned revisional court has been confirmed under sections 279 and 304 IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that he is not pressing this revision on the merit of the case, he is pressing this revision only on the question of the sentence.
From the perusal of the record it appears that the alleged incident has taken place on 25.7.1986. It is alleged that the applicant was driving the motor cycle which hit the deceased consequently he became unconscious, he was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The applicant was apprehended on the spot. The applicant has remained in jail for some period also. After passing a long period in case the applicant again sent to jail to serve out the sentence of the imprisonment, the enmity between the parties may increased. But to meet the ends of the justice, it is a case in which the remaining sentence of imprisonment may be converted into fine, therefore, the order of the conviction passed by appellate court is hereby affirmed, it is directed that the revisionist shall deposit the amount of Rs. 5000/- in lieu of the remaining sentence of imprisonment in addition to the fine already imposed. The total amount of the fine shall be deposited by the revisionist within three months from today. In default of aforesaid fine the revisionist shall serve the remaining sentence of the imprisonment. In case the aforesaid fine is deposited, the amount of Rs. 6,000/- shall paid to heirs of he victim.
Accordingly this revision is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.5.2012
RPD
