Vinod Prasad, J.@mdashThe revisionist Satish was the driver of Jeep No. URO 860, who dashed it against the deceased Shyam Bahadur S/o
informant Ram Swaroop P.W. 2 on 421987 at about 2 p.m. in Kasba Pipiganj, P.S. Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur, as a result of which Shyam
Bahadur lost his life.
2. The F.I.R. of the said accident was registered at the instance of Ram Swaroop P.W. 2 on the same day. The accident occurred infront of the
house of Narsingh Lal Srivastava.
3. Investigation into the offence resulted in chargesheeting the revisionist for the offences under Section 279/304A IPC and 89/118A Motor
Vehicle Act. On the basis of the said chargesheet trial Court summoned the revisionist and framed charges against him on 3101988 for offences
under Section 279/304A IPC.
4. In the trial Court prosecution examined Kedar P.W. 1, Ram Swaroop P.W. 2 (informant), Mohan P.W. 3, Dr. S.D. Gupta P.W. 4 (who
conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased) and Ali Mazahar P.W. 5 who had investigated the case as prosecution witness.
5. The postmortem examination report of the deceased indicated that he had sustained lacerated wound on the right thigh 5 cm x 3 cm surrounded
by abrasion 10 cm x 8 cm, 8 cm above the right knee. He had also sustained a contusion of 10 cm x 10 cm on the right side of abdomen.
Underneath the said injury blood had clotted. He had also sustained an abrasion on the left side of the neck 1 cm x 0.5 cm. There was an abraded
contusion on the left side of the cheek and on the temple. The deceased had also sustained an abrasion 30 cm x 2 cm on the chin. On the internal
examination his left side partial bone was found fractured. His liver was lacerated and stomach contained 4 oz of semidigested food. There was
feacal matter and gases in the large intestine.
6. Finding the case of the prosecution to be proved to the hilt, ACJM Court No. 14 Gorakhpur, convicted the revisionist for the offences under
Section 279/304A IPC and sentenced him for two months simple imprisonment on the first count and one year simple imprisonment on the second
count and ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
7. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2003 before Additional District and
Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Gorakhpur. Finding no merit in the appeal lower appellate Court dismissed the aforesaid appeal in toto
by his impugned judgment and order dated 19122006. Hence this revision.
8. I have heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Tripathi learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of this revision and learned AGA in opposition.
9. Sri Sudhir Kumar Tripathi learned Counsel for the revisionist made a vain attempt to argue that death of the deceased had occurred by fall from
a tree but ultimately conceeded that the prosecution version and the evidence led in trial Court, fully established the charges against the revisionist,
and therefore, conceeded that the conviction of the revisionist has been rightly recorded and the same cannot be assailed at all. He therefore,
mainly argued on the question of sentence.
10. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the appeal of the revisionist was dismissed on 19122006 and he had filed a revision in this
Court on 312007 and therefore, he has remain in Jail for about half month and the accident had occurred twenty years back due to the act of
carelessness on the part of the revisionist and therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the revisionist in Jail and instead his substantive
sentence may be altered into fine.
11. Learned AGA on the other hand contended that sentence of one year simple imprisonment is not much, keeping in view the life lost by a young
boy.
12. I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides.
13. As on date the revisionist has already gone a period of imprisonment for about five months. The accident occurred twenty years back. From
the perusal of evidence it seems that the accident occurred because of the negligent driving of the Jeep by the revisionist. He had no intention to
cause the accident. The postmortem report also indicates that the deceased did not have any crush injury. Therefore, it seems that because of the
negligence of the revisionist the Jeep dashed against the young boy on the thigh as a result of which he sustained fatal injury. In such a view I am of
the opinion that since the accident occurred two decades ago and the revisionist has already remained in Jail for about 5 months that the rest of the
period of his imprisonment be altered in to a fine and compensation be given to the informant P.W. 2 Ram Swaroop.
14. In such a view this revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the revisionist recorded by ACJM, Court No. 14, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No.
818 of 2001, State v. Satish, under Section 279/304A IPC vide order dated 852003, as is confirmed by Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2003, Satish v. State, vide impugned judgment and order dated
19122006 is hereby confirmed, but remaining part of the imprisonment of the revisionist is set aside and instead he is sentenced to the period of
imprisonment already undergone with further direction to pay Rs. 25,000/ as compensation to the informant P.W.1 2. He is allowed one month''s
time to deposit the said amount of compensation. As soon as the amount of compensation awarded above is deposited by the revisionist before
the ACJM, Court No. 14 Gorakhpur, the same shall be paid to the first informant (father of the deceased) if he is alive or to the legally entitled
person of his family within a period of one week thereafter. The revisionist shall be released from Jail only after he has deposited the entire amount
of compensation, which has been imposed by this judgment. In the event the revisionist fails to deposit the amount of compensation within
stipulated period of time, he shall remain in Jail to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower
appellate Court.
15. With the aforesaid modification in sentence this revision is partly allowed.
Revision partly allowed.