GOPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A First Information Report, in relation to rash and negligent driving causing grievous hurt to the informant, was lodged almost 45 days after the incident. The accident occurred at Vikas Nagar. The informant obtained medical assistance at Ludhiana from a private hospital. This private hospital attended to the grievous injuries which the informant suffered. In course of evidence, informant deposed that he was riding on a scooter, when a bus was coming at a high speed. It was stated that he stopped the scooter and was sitting on the scooter, when the bus hit the scooter and by reason thereof he sustained injuries. Medical report pertaining to the injuries sustained by the informant, as was produced, was not proved by the doctor who prepared the same. The said report, therefore, lost its evidentiary value. However, in the report, it was indicated that the informant suffered injuries on his hands, and that, a bone cracked. Therefore, the injury report coupled with the scene of incident, as depicted in course of evidence, clearly demonstrate that the bus, after having had collided with the scooter, controlled itself and did not permit aggravation of the accident. Be that as it may, no prosecution witness stated that the bus was being driven at the relevant time by the revisionist. However, a question was put under Section 313 of the Code to the revisionist to the effect that he was driving the bus at the time when the accident took place. Instead of denying the same, revisionist held out that he is not a driver but is a bus body maker, but, for that lacuna, there appears to be nothing against the revisionist in course of the trial. In fact, the prosecution case to the effect that it was the revisionist, who was driving the bus in question, was not proved to the hilt. However, when a question put under Section 313 of the Code to the revisionist to the effect that he was driving the bus at the relevant time, was not denied, it would not be possible for me to hold in exercise of revisional power that the guilt alleged against the revisionist was not proved in course of trial, as the same would be contrary to concurrent finding of facts. But having regard to the facts and circumstances depicted above and taking into account the entirety of the situation and also noting that there is no reason in support of the sentence awarded, I think it is an appropriate case, where in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court is duty bound to interfere with the sentence awarded. I, accordingly, reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 279, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 337 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment of one month. The revisionist is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. In the event the revisionist was in custody at any point of time in connection with the case, the period spent on such custody shall be deducted from the sentence as awarded by this order. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the court below with the lower court records.