ARJANJI RUPAJI RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset, learned advocate Mr.Satyen Raval appearing for the applicant-original accused submits that he does not challenge the conviction imposed by learned JMFC, 2nd Court, Deesa in Criminal Case No.2807 of 1994 for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the judgment and order dated 19.12.2006 confirming the said conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Deodar in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2002.

(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are as under: 2.1 That the applicant-accused was tried for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Deesa. It was alleged by the prosecution that, while driving the vehicle involved in the accident in rash and negligent manner, the applicant-accused dashed with bullock cart and two persons were injured and the bullock was also injured in the said accident. After recording the evidence of injured witnesses, and after perusing the documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the applicant-accused was drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and committed the accident in which two persons were injured and a bullock sustained some injuries. After recording the same, the learned Magistrate imposed sentence of three months imprisonment for the said offences and also imposed fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of fine, the accused were directed to undergo 15 days of simple imprisonment. 2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 16.9.2002 passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2002 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Deodar. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the applicant as well as the respondent, and after perusing the record and proceedings and the reasonings assigned by the learned Magistrate, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate. 2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by both the trial courts, this revision application is filed by the applicant-original accused. 2.4 As stated in the beginning, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has not challenged the conviction, but has requested that the sentence may be reduced looking to the injuries received by the witnesses as well as the bullock. In support of his submissions, he has taken me through the certificates of injuries, received by two persons and the bullock, who sustained injuries in the said accident. I have perused the injury certificate qua one Jawanji Karsanji Thakor at Exh.17 dated 27.9.1994 issued by Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Deesa as well as injury certificate of one Karsanji Okhaji Thakore at Exh.18 issued by the same Medical Officer. As per certificate of Jawanji Karsanji (Exh.17), it appears that this witness received three abrasions and a tenderness was found on the chest, and as per opinion of the doctor, the injury was caused by some hard and blunt substance and patient can be recovered within a period of 7 to 10 days. As per the injury certificate qua Karsanji Okhaji Thakore (Exh.18) is concerned, the doctor has opined that a tenderness was found on the chest, on the left leg as well as on the left fore arm. According to his opinion, the injury can be caused by some hard and blunt substance and patient can be recovered within a period of one week. Similarly a Veternary Doctor from Village Lakhani of Taluka Deesa vide certificate dated 27.9.1994 has opined that there was skin laceration on the chest and back side of the animal.

(3.) IN view of this, present Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. The sentence imposed on the applicant-accused by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is modified to the extent that the applicant-accused shall be convicted for one month and 30 days and the said period undergone by the applicant-accused shall be treated as conviction. The applicant-accused is on bail during the pendency of appeal and, therefore, his bail bond stands cancelled. Rule is partly made absolute. Office is directed to send the Record & Proceedings to the trial court forthwith.