JASPALSINGH KUNDANSINGH SAUSI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim for the offences punishable under sections 304 Part-II and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years for the former offence and S.I. for one month for the later offence. The appellant was driving Truck No. CG-04 JA -8665. There were in all four trucks including the truck of the appellant. All the four Drivers had quarreled with the employees of Toll Plaza situated at Super Highway, Karanja within the jurisdiction of Karanja-Lad Police Station. They did not want to pay the toll tax. Three truck Drivers took away their trucks through the toll gate without paying any tax. The appellant also wanted to do the same thing. It is alleged that the appellant by driving his truck in high speed had run down deceased-Basavraj and had caused injuries to one Sharad Birajdar. The appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. for having caused death of Basavraj and for having attempted to cause death to Sharad Birajdar. As already stated, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 304 Part II and 323 of the I.P.C.

(2.) During the course of hearing, it was submitted by Mr. Tathod that the appellant does not press for acquittal. However he prays for mercy on the ground that the appellant was not responsible for the death of Basavraj. It was submitted by Mr. Tathod that without going into the merits of the Appeal and without appellant claiming clear acquittal, what can be noted is that deceased-Basavraj and the injured Sharad themselves have come on the road. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted this Court to take note of the fact that the truck could not have been in high speed because it had to pass through the lane of toll gate and the incident had occurred 42 to 50 feet away from the toll booth. This, of course, is without going into the merits of the case. This is recorded only with a view to ascertain whether leniency can be shown to the appellant in the matter of sentence. After having considered the evidence of PW 2-Vishal, PW 5-Rajusing and PW 7-Sk. Kalam and after having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P., I have come to the conclusion that there was no intention to kill and there was no intention to cause any bodily injury as was likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Obviously, therefore the appellant has been convicted only for the offence punishable u/s. 304 Part II of IPC. In view thereof, the in my considered opinion, the Court can use discretion in favour of the appellant by reducing the sentence imposed by the trial Court. The Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss. 304 Part II and 323 of the I.P.C. is maintained. The sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 304 Part II of IPC is reduced to five years from seven years. As such, the Court passes the following order:--