SHIVENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2006 as well as the judgment and order dated 10.11.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet in Criminal Case No.253 of 2001 State vs. Shivendra Singh, whereby courts below have convicted the accusedrevisionist under Section 304-A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Accusedrevisionist has been further convicted u/s 279 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500. Accused-revisionist has been further convicted u/s 337 of IPC and has been sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500/-. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that a report was handed over to Patwari Quarla by one Sri Madan Singh with the allegations that on 01.12.2000 at about 11 pm, Jeep no.01-5599 was coming from Dabhara to Quarala with passengers. At Srinagar, vehicle met with an accident in which the passengers and the revisionist-accused got injured. It is alleged that the vehicle was being driven by the revisionist-accused. After registering the case, Patwari went to the spot. One person Bache Singh was brought to hospital where he was declared dead. Patwari conducted investigation and on completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the revisionist-accused. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined PW1 Madan Singh, PW2 Pratap Singh, PW3 Keshar Singh, PW4 Ramesh Arya and PW5 Manorath Lakhchaura. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the revisionist-accused were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations made against him. After hearing the parties and on perusal of evidence, trial court convicted and sentenced the revisionistaccused as above. Feeling aggrieved, revisionistaccused preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Almora, which also got dismissed by the judgment and order impugned.

(3.) After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the revisionist would confine his argument qua quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the incident relates to the year 2000 and almost 18 years have passed since then. Revisionist is aged about 71 years and is facing mental agony due to the pendency of the criminal case against him. He would also submit that the revisionist has remained in jail for about one and a half month. In such circumstances, learned counsel would submit that lenient view may be taken to reduce his sentence. He, however, would submit that if the Court finds desirable, fine awarded by the trial court, may be enhanced.