MELAJI SOMAJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revisionist was tried by Metropolitan Court No. 19 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304a of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134a, 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act in Case No. 385 of 1992. The incident in question occurred on 12. 12. 1991 at about 6. 00 P. M. opposite Narol Electric Sub-Station when the Revisionist driving ONGC Bus No. GJ-1 T 5063 came from Narol Village side and dashed against cyclists driving ahead of him on the left edge of the road. Because of the impact, the cyclists and the persons travelling with him fell on the road. They were run over by the bus and all of them died instantaneously. The Revisionist escaped from the place of incident. He was apprehended later on by the police during investigation. Charge sheet was filed and case was committed. On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the evidence of eye-witnesses and considering the medical evidence, the Trial Court found that the prosecution was successful in proving charges of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304a of IPC and Sections 177, 184 and 134b of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced the Revisionist undergo simple imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. The said judgment and order recording conviction and sentence was challenged by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1999 before City Sessions Court. The City Sessions Court, after considering the merits of the case, on factual and legal aspects, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal and, hence, this revision application.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Ravish Bhatt, appearing for the Revisionist submitted that, it is not possible for him to challenge the factual findings about the rashness and negligence on the part of the Revisionist in driving the vehicle resulting into death of three persons, but he pressed for grant of benefit of probation to the revisionist relying on the following two decisions of the Apex Court:- (1) A. P. Raju v. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp 2 SCC 385; and (2) Paul George v. State of Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 185. He also submitted that, alternatively, the Court may consider the question of reducing the sentence.

(3.) THE revision is opposed to by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Nanavati. According to him, in the case of A. P. Raju (supra), the facts were totally different. The appellant was acquitted by the Trial Court, which came to be altered to conviction by the High Court, which was being considered by the Apex Court and there much time had lapsed in hearing the appeal and, therefore, benefit of probation was given. He submitted that, in that case, only one death had resulted out of the accident. Mr. Nanavati submitted that in the case of Paul George (supra), the offender was granted benefit of probation by the Apex Court considering the fact that the litigation was pending for 20 years. There also there was only one death and, therefore, the judgments may not help the Revisionist and the revision application may, therefore, be dismissed.