VIKRAM PABJI CHAVDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the revisionist to challenge the judgment and order rendered by the City Sessions Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 20/1991, on 4. 10. 1991, and to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Metropolitan Court No. 3, in Criminal Case No. 3369/1989, on 27. 3. 1991, convicting and confirming the conviction of the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, found that the prosecution was successful in establishing the charge and while convicting the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, sentenced him to undergo S. I for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo further S. I for one week. While convicting the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 304a IPC, the Court sentenced him to undergo S. I for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo further S. I for 15 days. 1. 1 The said judgment and order of the Metropolitan Court was challenged by the accused-revisionist before the City Sessions Court by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 20/1991 and the Sessions Court by the judgment impugned, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision application before this Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the revisionist was driving Jeep-Car No. GUF-478 travelling from Dehgam side to Naroda side on 29. 10. 1989 around 19. 45 hours. It was the case of the prosecution that the vehicle was being driven by the accused on the wrong side in a rash and negligent manner, and when the Jeep-Car was passing by the Naroda S. T. Bus Stand, it dashed against Cyclist Deepak and as a result of the accident, Deepak suffered several injuries and ultimately, succumbed to the same. The Jeep-Car also dashed against the first informant and caused injuries to his right leg. An FIR was, therefore, lodged and offence was registered under Sections 279, 304a and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The witnesses were examined and ultimately, conviction came to be recorded. 2. 1 A dispute was raised regarding identity of the driver of the vehicle, but, was turned down by both the Courts below on merits. It has also been recorded that the identity aspect of the accused did not remain a matter of challenge any more, when the accused, while giving an application for exemption, specifically stated that identity of the accused is not in dispute.

(3.) THIS Court has heard learned advocate Mr. Asim Pandya for the revisionist, and learned A. P. P. Mr. K. C. Shah for the respondent-State.