STATE Vs. SATYAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment dated 07.8.2009 passed by Mr. S.K. Gautam, learned ASJ, (West- 04), Delhi by virtue of which the learned ASJ has upheld the conviction of the respondent for an offence under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC in Crl.A. No. 05/04/2009 titled Satyawan Vs. State but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the already undergone by him during the course of trial, while as the respondent has not undergone even a single day's imprisonment. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was driving a DTC bus bearing RC No. DL IP 1640 on 30.4.1997 at about 8.10 am in a rash and negligent manner at the crossing of North Avenue Road and West Avenue Road, New Delhi and thereby caused simple injuries to one Karishma, grievous injuries to one Sanjeev Kumar and also death of one minor girl Priyanka, who were travelling along with their parents in an Auto. As a consequence of this, a case under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC was registered vide FIR no. 426/97 of P.S. Punjabi Bagh and the respondent was arrested and later enlarged on bail because of the offences being bailable one.

(2.) After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and trial was conducted which culminated into the finding of guilt and imposition of sentence upon the respondent by the learned Magistrate on 27.4.2009. The learned Magistrate held the respondent guilty on all the four counts i.e. Section 279/337/338/304A IPC. For the three offences under Section 337/338/304A IPC the respondent was sentenced to SI for 6 months each and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) In addition to this, a compensation/fine to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be paid by the respondent for offences u/s 337, 338 and 304A IPC respectively and in default of payment of the fine, farther SI of 30 days was imposed. So far as the offence under Section 279 IPC is concerned, no separate sentence was imposed as the said offence was held to constitute a minor offence as compared to the other three offences.