BHAMARSINGH BHAIRAVSINGH RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN accident occurred on 03. 03. 1992 at about 8. 30 A. M. Involving Jeep Car No. GRN 817 and Bus No. GRU 7093, resulting into death of three persons and injuries to a number of persons besides damage to both the vehicles. An F. I. R. was lodged by driver of the bus, Deepsinh with police, on the basis of which an offence was registered and investigated by Idar Police. Charge sheet was laid before J. M. F. C. , Idar and Criminal Case No. 1062 of 1993 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304a of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver of the Jeep Car. The driver of the Jeep Car pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. The Magisterial Court found him guilty for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304a of the IPC and Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For the offence punishable under Section 279, he was sentenced to under simple imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; for the offence punishable under Section 304, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months; for the offence punishable under Section 338, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; and for the offence punishable under Section 337, IPC, simple imprisonment for one month was awarded with a fine of Rs. 100/- and, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for ten days, whereas no separate sentence was awarded for the offences punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The judgment was delivered on 26th July, 1994 by J. M. F. C. , Idar. The said judgment was challenged by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1994 in the Sessions Court, Sabarkantha, at Himatnagar. The Sessions Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated 22nd January, 2001. The Jeep driver, the convict-accused, has preferred the present revision application to challenge the said two judgments and orders.

(2.) HEARD learned Advocate, Mr. Popat, for the Revisionist and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Nanavati, for the State.

(3.) AT the outset, it must be recorded that learned Advocate, Mr. Popat, has failed to demonstrate any legal perversity or a legal error on the part of either of the Courts below.