RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.12.2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. For the offence under Sec. 279 I.P.C., the learned Magistrate has sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment of six months and imposed a fine of Rs. 500.00 and further directed him in to undergo one month of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For the offence under Sec. 337 I.P.C., the learned Magistrate has sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment of three months and imposed of fine of Rs. 250.00, and directed to undergo 20 days of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Sec. 338 I.P.C., the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 1,000.00, and was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months in default thereof. Further, for the offence under Sec. 304-A, the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000.00, and directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months in default thereof. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.8.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the judgment dated 4.12.2000 and has confirmed the conviction and the sentence.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 27.3.1988, the complainant, Satyadev Yadav, lodged a written report at Police Station Sadar, Sikar that on that day he and his family members were coming to Sikar from Salasar in Jeep No. Rs. 4045, driven by Rain Kumar. At about 9.30 A.M., when they reached near village Nani, suddenly a Jonga Jeep being driven rashly and negligently, dashed against their vehicle. Consequently, their vehicle turned turtled; the driver of Jeep, Ram Kumar died on the spot. The other passengers travelling in the jeep also sustained injuries. On the basis of the said report, a formal F.I.R., F.I.R. No. 36/1998 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 304A I.P.C. On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and produced number of documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 4.12.2000, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned judge. However, vide judgment dated 23.8.2001, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has frankly conceded that he does not wish to argue the case on merit. However, he pleads only for granting the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('the Act', for short). According to the petitioner, the case relates to the year 1988. Thus, the petitioner has been facing a trial and an appeal for more than two decades. Moreover, this happens to be the first and only offence committed by the petitioner. Furthermore, neither the learned Magistrate, nor the learned Judge has assigned any legal reason for denying the benefit of the Act to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has merely stated that many persons were injured in the accident and the driver of the jeep died and one Bherulal suffered a fracture in his back bone. The accident took place with such a force that the jeep itself turned turtled, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of probation. According to the learned counsel, since the Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation, it should be applied as liberally as possible. Therefore, he has pleaded that the benefit of Sec. 4 of the Act should be given to the petitioner.