Udevir Singh vs State
1991 Latest Caselaw 186 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Bansal, J.

1. Udevir Singh has filed this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thereby challenging his conviction under Sections 279 and 338 IPC recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate and confirmed on appeal by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

2. The petitioner was sentenced to R.I. for a period of six months and with a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo S.I. for one month under Section 338 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo S.I. for one month under Section 279 IPC.

3. The trial Court had passed the order of conviction on 1st August, 1989 while the order of sentence was announced on 16th August, 1989. Appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 17th January, 1991 when conviction for the aforesaid two offences was maintained but the order of sentence was modified to the extent that the substantive sentence for the offence under Section 338 IPC was reduced to three months.

4. Still feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, has been that on 18th February, 1984 the petitioner was the driver of Bus No. DHP-2797 near Vijay Cinema and at about 9.10 A.M. while driving it in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life hit a cycle-rickshaw driven by Mukesh in which Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Smt. Shanti Devi were traveling causing injuries to them. The prosecution story was supported by the two injured. Plea taken up by the petitioner was that the accident was not caused by the bus and he had examined Mukesh, the cycle rickshaw puller. However, considering all the evidence produced on record and after hearing arguments the learned trial Court while giving a reasoned judgment convicted the petitioner and awarded the sentence. Conviction of the petitioner has been confirmed by the appellant Court also.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction of the petitioner. Even otherwise I have gone through the evidence on record including the statements of Smt. Kaushalya Devi (PW3), Smt. Shanti Devi (PW8) and Dr. J.R. Dass (PW2). Smt. Kaushalya Devi had stated that she sustained fracture which evidence stands corroborated from the statement of Dr. J.R.Dass, Radiologist. Considering all these facts coupled with the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC is confirmed.

7. learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for leniency. He has submitted that the petitioner has already been in jail for 45 days. He has also submitted that the petitioner was a Government Servant who has lost his job and submits that the remaining substantive sentence may be modified to the sentence of fine.

8. The offence under Section 338 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The learned trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- which has been upheld by the appellate Court though the substantive sentence was reduced to three months by the appellate Court. Considering all the facts and circumstances, I am clearly of the view that ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence for the offence under Section 338 IPC is modified by reducing the imprisonment to the period to which the petitioner has already been in jail while the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 1, 000/-.

9. As a result, the petition is accepted in part. The conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Ss.279 and 338 IPC is confirmed. The order of sentence is, however, modified. The substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period for which he has already been in jail. The amount of fine under Section 279 IPC is maintained while the amount of fine for the offence under Section 338 is raised to Rs. 1, 000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo S.I. for one year.