Allahabad High Court
Rama Kant Verma vs State Of U.P. on 30 April, 2013
Bench: S.C. Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 831 of 2013
Petitioner :- Rama Kant Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
Learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Jhansi, vide order dated 13.12.2007 passed in criminal case no.7 of 2006 (old no.3717 of 2001), State Vs. Rama Kant Verma, arising out of crime no.318 of 2001, P.S. Sadar Bazar, Jhansi, convicted the revisionist for the offences under sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The revisionist was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under section 279 IPC and R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The criminal appeal no.59 of 2007 preferred by the revisionist was dismissed on 27.2.2013 by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi. Hence, this revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that according to the FIR, the accident was caused by a Tata 407 vehilce, whereas according to the witnesses Vijayram (P.W.2) and Raghuveer (P.W.3), the accident was caused by a DCM vehicle and the prosecution story is unbelievable.
The incident took place on 28.5.2001 at about 7:00 P.M. The FIR was lodged on 29.5.2001 at P.S. Sadar Bazar, Jhansi by Raj Kumar, the son of the deceased, stating therein that his father Dhaniram was returning home from Jhansi and near Shankergarh Pullia, Tata 407 Vehicle No.UP93B-3873, which was being driven rashly and negligently, dashed with Dhaniram causing him injuries. Dhaniram was taken to Medical College, Jhansi for treatment. The driver of the offended vehicle ran away leaving behind his vehicle. The victim died on 29.5.2001 and thereafter FIR was lodged.
The case was tried as a summon's case. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Raj Kumar, P.W.2 Vijay Ram, P.W.3 Raghuveer, P.W.4 Dr. R.K. Chaturvedi, P.W.5 H.C.P. Motilal, P.W.6 Brijraj Singh, P.W.7 Shashank Sharma and P.W.8 Vinod Kumar. Out of aforesaid 8 witnesses, P.W.1 is the complainant, but he is not an eyewitness. P.W.2 & P.W.3 are the witnesses of fact and rest are formal witnesses. In the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the revisionist denied the prosecution allegations and stated that the witnesses have given false testimony. However, no defense evidence was adduced. Learned trial court found the revisionist guilty for the offences under sections 279 and 304-A IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The appeal preferred by the revisionist was also dismissed.
P.W.1 Raj Kumar is not an eyewitness. He lodged FIR on the basis of information provided by P.W.2 & P.W.3. The registration number of the offended vehicle has also been given in the FIR. P.W.2 & P.W.3 stated before the trial court that after hitting the deceased, the driver of the vehicle ran away from the spot leaving behind the vehicle at the petrol pump. The offended vehicle was seized from the petrol pump. It is not disputed that the revisionist is driver of the aforesaid Vehicle No.UP93B-3873. Both the courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the revisionist. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and I do not find any good ground to interfere with the same or to upturn the said finding. In these circumstances, the conviction of the revisionist for the offences under sections 279 and 304-A IPC cannot be said to be illegal and is affirmed.
As regards quantum of sentence is concerned, the revisionist has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in respect of the offence under section 279 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under section 304-A IPC. The sentence awarded to the revisionist cannot be said to be excessive by any standard and does not require any interference by this Court.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the revisionist. The conviction order passed by the Magistrate as well as the appellate order are fully justified and no ground for interference is made out.
Revision is accordingly dismissed.
Revisionist is in jail and shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court.
Let the records be returned to trial court along with copy of this judgment within a week.
Order Date :- 30.4.2013
ss
