SUKHRAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The revisionist Sukhram was tried by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad in Case No. 251 of 2004, State v. Sukhram for offences under Sections 279, 304-A and 427, I. P. C. , Police Station, Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad arising out of Crime No. 728 of 2000. Finding the revisionist guilty under Sections 279, 304-A and 427, I. P. C. the trial Court convicted him under the aforesaid sections and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment of one month under Section 279, I. P. C, four months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences under Section 304-A and 427, I. P. C vide its order dated 22-6- 2004. The trial Court further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentences the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2004, Sukhram v. State, which appeal was heard and decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad who was please to dismiss the aforesaid appeal on 12-12-2006 in toto, hence this revision challenging both the aforesaid orders of conviction and sentences and the affirmation thereof.

(2.) THE synopsized allegations against the revisionist are that Sunil Kumar Agrawal (deceased) who was the brother of Anil Kumar Agrawal, informant, was returning on his Moped to his house on 17-12-2000 at 6. 00 p. m. when at Rajnagar Fly Over Crossing Roadways Bus No. U. P.-24-1886 dashed against his Moped from behind as result of which the deceased Sunil Kumar Agrawal was thrown on the ground and the said Roadways Bus crushed him to death. Neeraj Kumar, a scooter rider chased the said bus on which the driver of the bus ran away from the spot after leaving the bus. THE F. I. R. of the said incident was lodged by Anil Kumar Agrawal on 17-12-2000 at 6. 45 p. m. at Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, which was registered as Crime No. 728 of 2000 under the aforesaid sections. THE investigation revealed that the present revisionist was the accused of the aforesaid offences and therefore, the charge-sheet was laid against him.

(3.) SRI A. P. Tiwari learned Counsel for the revisionist fairly conceded that so far as findings of fact recorded in this revision are concerned both the Courts below did not commit any error in recording the said findings of fact. Consequently, learned Counsel for the revisionist did not lay much emphasis on the conviction part of the impugned judgments and conceded that the revisionist has been rightly convicted. However, he addressed the Court on the sentence part of the revisionist an contended that six years has lapsed since the incident had taken place and to send the revisionist to jail at this belated stage for a maximum period of four months rigorous imprisonment will not serve any useful purpose. He submitted that sentencing the revisionist to jail is not going to further cause of justice. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that after the appeal of the revisionist was dismissed on 12-12-2006, the revisionist has already remain in jail for more than a month and therefore, his substantive sentence of imprisonment be altered into fine.