Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chander Shekhar vs State on 16 February, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:6749] (1 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 310/2005
Chander Shekhar S/o Shri Pooran Mal, by case Brahmin, resident
of village Phagi, PS Phagi, District Jaipur (At present in Central
Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rinesh Gupta
Mr.Anoop Meena
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. G. Chopra-PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
16.02.2024
1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.03.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.95/2002, whereby, learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jaipur, District Jaipur in Criminal Case No.356/2001, whereby, accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-
Offence Under Imprisonment Fine Sentence in Section default of fine 279 of IPC 03 Months' R.I. Rs.500/- 15 Days' S.I. 337 of IPC 03 Months' R.I. Rs.500/- 15 Days' S.I. 338 of IPC 06 Months S.I. Rs.1,000/- 01 Month S.I. 304-A of IPC 02 Years' R.I. Rs.2,000/- 02 Months' S.I. (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (2 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005]
2. The facts of the case in the nut-shell are as under:-
3. As per the prosecution case, on 20.08.1997, PW3 Mohd. Mubin Khan recorded parcha bayan of PW1 Tasleem at SMS Hospital, Jaipur to the effect that the injured and her 6-7 relatives had hired Jeep No.RJX-1194 for going to Kuchaman from Phagi in Rs.1100/-. In parcha bayan, it is also stated that apart from her Gulam Mohd., Nizamuddin, Jaitun, Majidan, Ramko, Barkat, Mumtaj, Hina and driver of the Jeep were in the Jeep. On 19.08.1997, at about 06:00 PM. After returning from Kuchaman, at about 12:00 AM, near to Bhankrota Puliya at Ajmer Road, the jeep collided with truck No.KA-01-6524, which was parked at its side. It is also stated in the parcha bayan that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the Jeep driver. Due to the accident, Nizamuddin sustained injuries and Smt. Jaitun and Gulam Mohammad expired.
4. On the above parcha bayan, case under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC was registered and after investigation, Police charge-sheeted the accused-petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and in defence petitioner also examined 5 witnesses.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner that learned Appellate Court, without properly appreciating and critically examining the evidence available on record, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court.
6. The bare perusal of the impugned judgments of learned Courts below shows that evidence put forth by the prosecution (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (3 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005] were not property analyzed. It is also argued that there is no specific finding regarding rash and negligent driving of the accused-petitioner. As per Section 304A of the IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove rashlessness and negligence of the driver. Both the learned Courts below failed to consider the well- established legal position, thus, committed material irregularity and jurisdictional error while passing the impugned judgments. The accident occurred at the mid-night and the truck was parked at the left side of the road where the jeep was being driven. The record does not show that there was any indication that truck was parked properly. There is also no evidence that parking lights of the truck were on, therefore, in such circumstances on a National Highway, if Jeep is hit to the Truck, then it cannot be said that petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Merely, fast speed cannot be the ground to infer that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. The testimony of PW-1 Tasleem, PW- 5 Nizammuddin, PW-6 Smt. Barkat & PW-9 Ramzo was not properly appreciated. The learned Appellate Court as well as the trial Court failed to consider the aspect that the witnesses have improved their versions. The learned trial court and Appellate Court has not taken the contradiction and omission of material points. Therefore, impugned judgments dated 15.03.2005 and 24.10.2022 may kindly be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has placed his reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Mahipal Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 277
(ii) Dilip Singh Vs. State: 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 9919
(iii) Bhanwara Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2020(3) RLW 2348 (Raj.) (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (4 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005]
(iv) Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.588/2001
(v) Badri Prasad Vs. The State: I(1994) ACC 676, 76(1993)CLT668, 1994CrilJ389
8. Learned Public Prosecutor justifies the conviction of accused- petitioner. He submits that the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court has rightly convicted the accused-petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC. Both the Courts below have thoroughly appreciated the evidence put forth by the prosecution. Therefore, the revision petition preferred by the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.
9. Under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the fact that at the time of accident, accused-petitioner was driving the vehicle in question and owing to rash and negligent act of the accused-petitioner, the deceased suffered injuries, resulting into death and further to prove that questioned vehicle was being driven on public way. In the instant matter, the fact of ramming of the questioned vehicle with the standing Truck No.KA-01-6524 is not in dispute. It is also undisputed that as a result of accident, PW-1 Tasleem, PW-5 Barkat, PW6 Nizamuddin and PW9 Ramko sustained simple and grievous injuries and Gulam Mohd. and Jaitun died on the spot. The accused-petitioner has taken the plea before the learned trial court that at the time of incident, he was not driving the questioned vehicle. In order to prove the contentions, accused- petitioner has examined DW-1 Jumma Khan, DW-2 Kazor, DW-3 Sita Ram and DW-4 Jiyaudin and himself as DW-5. The learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court after thoroughly appreciating the defence version, so also, the prosecution witnesses concluded (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (5 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005] that the defence version put forth by the accused-petitioner is not believable.
10. DW-1 Jumma Khan in his statement has stated that before two days back from 20.08.1997, accused-petitioner Chander Shekhar was at Vaishno Devi and he returned back after seven days. The witness has also stated that Chander Shekhar does not know driving. Similarly, DW-2 Kazor has stated that accused- petitioner is an Electrician and he does not know driving the vehicle and at the time of accident, he was at Vaishno Devi tour. Both the witnesses have stated that accused-petitioner travelled to Vaishno Devi in a Tata Sumo Vehicle.
11. In cross-examining the witnesses have stated that they are not aware about registration number of the Tata Sumo. DW-3 Sita Ram has deposed that accused was at Vaishno Devi and he went in Maruti Van No.RJ-08-0582. Similarly, accused-petitioner was also examined as DW-5 and has deposed that he travelled through Maruti Van No.RJ-08-0582 to Vaishno Devi. The evidence of DW-1 Jumma Khan and DW-2 Kazor is entirely contrary to DW-3 Sita Ram and DW5 Chander Shekhar. DW-1 Jumma Khan and DW-2 Kazor have stated that accused went to Vaishno Devi in a Tata Sumo vehicle whereas, accused-petitioner himself and DW-3 Sita Ram have stated that they went in a vehicle bearing No.RJ-08-0582. Further, DW-1 Jumma Khan and DW-2 Kazor have deposed that accused-petitioner does not know driving the vehicle, whereas on the other hand, Police has recovered the driving licence of accused-petitioner.
12. Similarly, DW-2 Kazor and DW-3 Sita Ram have also stated that they went along with Chander Shekhar to Vaishno Devi. (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (6 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005] Accused-petitioner Chander Shekhar himself has denied the fact that Kazor accompanied him at the tour to Vaishno Devi. The learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court after appreciating the entire evidence did not find the defence version truthful.
13. Therefore, it is apparent that accused-petitioner has taken a plea of alibi just to save himself.
14. On the other hand, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Tasleem, PW-3 Mohd. Mubin Khan (Investigating Officer), PW-5 Nizamuddin, PW-6 Barkat & PW-9 Ramko to prove the fact regarding driving of the vehicle by the accused-petitioner.
15. PW-1 Tasleem in her statement has clearly deposed that Barkat, Nizamuddin, Jaitun, Mubin Khan, Gulam Mohammad, Ramko, Mumtaj and minor daughter Hina were travelling in the Jeep and the Jeep was driven by accused-petitioner Chander Shekhar.
16. PW5 Barkat who was accompanying PW-1 Tasleem, PW-6 Nizamuddin, PW-9 Ramko and other relatives, has deposed that accused-petitioner was driving the vehicle and after accident he ran away.
17. Similarly, PW-9 Ramko and PW-6 Nizamuddin have also stated that accused-petitioner was driving the questioned vehicle. The statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of PW-1 Tasleem, PW-5 Barkat, PW-6 Nizamuddin & PW-9 Ramko were recorded by the Investigating Officer PW-3 Mohd. Mubin Khan.
18. In the statement of PW6 Nizamuddin recorded as Exhibit-D2, on 20.08.1997, name of the accused-petitioner as a driver has been stated. Similarly, statement of PW-5 Barkat under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.08.1997 wherein, he also (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (7 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005] stated that accused-petitioner Chander Shekhar was driving the vehicle. The parcha bayan of PW-1 Tasleem was recorded on 20.08.1997, at 04:30 AM in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. In her parcha bayan Exhibit-P1, the name of the accused-petitioner is not mentioned but the other witnesses PW-5 Barkat, PW-6 Nizamuddin and PW-9 Ramko have clearly stated that accused-petitioner was driving the vehicle. It is also the story of the prosecution that the Jeep was hired by PW-6 Nizamuddin for to & fro journey from Jaipur to Kuchaman. PW-6 Nizamuddin has clearly stated that after coming back from Kuchaman, the vehicle met with an accident and accused-petitioner Chander Shekhar was driving the questioned vehicle. In cross-examination, PW-5 Barkat has clearly denied that some other person was driving the vehicle and accused-petitioner was not driving the same. Similarly, the other eye-witnesses and injured PW-5 Barkat and PW-9 Ramko reiterated the fact in the cross-examination that accused-petitioner Chander Shekhar was driving the vehicle.
19. The defence put forth by the accused-petitioner is itself contrary and not a specific. Further, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 Tasleem, PW-5 Barkat, PW6 Nizamuddin and PW-9 Ramko. All the witnesses have no enmity with the accused-petitioner, therefore, they have falsely involved the accused-petitioner in the case is, totally ruled out. The learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court also reached to the conclusion that accused-petitioner was driving the questioned vehicle. There is no cogent reason for this Court to disturb the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court.
(Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (8 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005]
20. It is also settled law that prosecution itself has to prove, by way of clear and reliable evidences that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused-petitioner. The witnesses are required to expound upon the manner in which the vehicle was being driven. It is also imperative upon the prosecution to prove the element of 'rash and negligent act' on the part of the accused-petitioner. Before proceeding further, it is important to refer some judgments underscoring the meaning of rash and negligent driving.
21. The matter of "Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72" defines the term "rash and negligent driving" as under:-
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still, a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and caution"
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court while drawing the distinction between rash and negligent act in "Bhalachandra Waman Pathe Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1968 ACJ 38", has further held as under:-
"An offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code may be committed either by doing a rash act or a negligent act. There is a distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. In the case of a rash act, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (9 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005] the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Again, a culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and if he had he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection"
23. In the light of the above judgments, it is to be seen, whether the act of the accused-petitioner falls within the ambit of 'rash and negligent act'.
24. PW-1 Tasleem in her relevant examination-in-chief, has deposed that accused-petitioner was driving the Jeep speedily and all the passengers in the Jeep told him to drive the Jeep slowly but he did not respond to their request. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that at the time of accident, it was dark night. She has denied that at the time of accident, she was sleeping and questioned Jeep was hit by some Truck.
25. PW-5 Barkat, who is injured and co-passenger of the questioned Jeep, has also deposed that Chander Shekhar was driving the Jeep speedily and despite alarming him, he did not respond. Resultantly, the Jeep rammed to parked truck. In cross- examination, the witness deposed that Jeep hit the stationed vehicle from the back-side. He further deposed that he is not (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (10 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005] aware about the width of the road. He also denied that Truck was parked at wrong side.
26. PW-6 Nizamuddin the co-passenger in the questioned Jeep so also the injured, corroborate the version of eye-witnesses PW-1 Tasleem and PW-6 Nizamuddin. In his relevant cross-examination, he also stated his unawareness about the width of the road. He also denied the fact that reparing work was being executed on the road. He has also denied the fact that suddenly the Truck has stopped due to which the questioned vehicle collided with the Truck. He has also denied that Truck coming from the opposite side collided with the questioned Jeep.
27. PW-9 Ramko in her examination-in-chief also affirmed the prosecution story and clearly stated that accused-petitioner was driving the vehicle speedily and rammed the Jeep to parked Truck and the driver fled away from the place of accident. In cross- examination, she has admitted that accident occurred at night and it was raining. She also shown her unawareness about the speed of the erring Jeep. She also denied the fact that Truck has collided with the Jeep and reiterated the fact that Truck was parked.
28. PW-3 Mohd. Mubin Khan (Investigating Officer) in his relevant examination-in-chief has deposed that during investigation, he prepared site plan (Exhibit P2) which bears his signatures so also the thumb impressions of PW-1 Tasleem and Lallu Khan. His evidence is relevant to find out the actual place of occurrence so also to locate the parked Truck.
29. In his cross-examination, he stated that it is not mentioned in Exhibit P-2 that parking lights of the parked Truck was on or not. He also shows his ignorance about the reason of the parked Truck (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (11 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005] at the place of occurrence. He also states that he is unaware about the fact that suddenly Truck from opposite side came, resulting into ramming of the questioned vehicle with the parked Truck. He also states that the Truck was parked at a strip of land at its right side. He also admits that at the left side of the road, there is a drain with depth of 5-6 feet. He acknowledges the fact that in site plan (Exhibit P2), it has not been categorically written that at the left side of the road, there is side strip. He also denies the fact that the drain is just near to the road and no footpath is existing at the place of occurrence.
30. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner mainly pointed out that PW-3 Mohd. Mubin Khan, Investigating Officer has given the evidence which is totally against the site plan (Exhibit P-2). He vehemently argues that site plan of place of occurrence has its own importance and it is established from the site plan that the said Truck was parked on road and the parking lights or indicator of the said Truck was not turned on at the time of occurrence. Therefore, the learned trial Court and Appellate Court erred in convicting the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.
31. An implicit duties casts on a driver driving a vehicle on a public road to see, the driver does not endanger the life and rights of the users of the road. If, for any reasons, if the Truck driver had parked or stationed the vehicle on the side of the road in violation of road regulations, there is no answer for the accused to absolve himself of his criminal negligence. Being the driver of a motor vehicle on a public road, he is required to anticipate or foresee any negligent act of the other road users as the doctrine of (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (12 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005] contributory negligence does not come to his aid. Criminal negligence is the gross and equitable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury to the public generally or to the individual in particular. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the stationed vehicle cannot be accepted.
32. The Truck was stationed at the road is obvious from the site plan (Exhibit P-2). PW-3 Mohd. Mubin Khan, Investigating Officer though has not drawn the site plan meticulously, leaving many shortcomings but the versions of all the eye-witnesses that they were continuously cautioning the accused not to drive fast cannot be brushed aside just because Investigating Officer has erred in drawing the site plan.
33. It is pertinent to point out that the accused-petitioner has taken variable defences and has not come up with a specific defence. In cross-examination of eye-witnesses, he has tried to introduce a story that the Truck from the opposite direction suddenly came resulting into accident. This defence of the accused-petitioner is totally denied by all the witnesses and site plan prepared by the concerned Investigating Officer totally repudiate the defence put forth by the accused-petitioner.
34. The accused-petitioner also tried to incorporate the defence that at the time of occurrence, he was not driving the vehicle and Hanuman was driving the vehicle. This fact has also been totally denied by the eye-witnesses rather the eye-witnesses reiterates that accused-petitioner himself was driving the vehicle. This shows that the accused-petitioner does not have any specific defence (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (13 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005] and is trying to circumvent the actual story. All the eye-witnesses have no enmity with the accused-petitioner and their versions have remained un-wavered. There are no cogent reasons for this Court to disbelieve the testimony of eye-witnesses.
35. The learned trial Court and Appellate Court after documenting all the objections and conceivable defences put forth by the accused-petitioner, have rightly appreciated the depositions of witnesses and concluded that the accused-petitioner was negligent in driving.
36. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has also argued that speedily driving itself is not a ground to infer that accused-petitioner was driving the vehicle rightly or negligently. Therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence regarding rashness or negligent act of the accused-petitioner, the accused- petitioner is liable to be acquitted. The arguments raised by the learned counsel has no substance as, the evidence put forth by the prosecution clearly shows that despite warning for speedy driving, the accused-petitioner did not give any heed to witnesses' voices.
37. If a prudent person thinks that a particular driver is over- speeding and may endanger the life, then the presumption always stays against the driver, that he either rash or negligent. It is highly unreasonable for the witnesses to depose the speed of the vehicle. In the instant case, eye-witnesses are villagers and it cannot be expected from them to pin-point the speed of the vehicle. The version of the eye-witnesses are sufficient to conclude that accused-petitioner did not exercise proper care and precaution. Therefore, reliance placed by the accused-petitioner (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (14 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005] referring the judgments of Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.588/2001 & Badri Prasad Vs. The State: (1994) ACC 676, 76(1993)CLT668, 1994CrilJ389 are totally misplaced.
38. I do not find any perversity in the impugned orders dated 15.03.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.95/2002 and order dated 24.10.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jaipur, District Jaipur in Criminal Case No.356/2001.
39. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in alternative prays that accused-petitioner has now attained the age of 58 years and occurrence relates back to 1997 and the accused- petitioner has already served the sentence of about 05 months & 13 days out of maximum sentence of two years S.I. awarded to him. Therefore, sentence awarded to accused-petitioner may be reduced to period already undergone by him.
40. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner places his reliance upon the judgments passed in Mahipal Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 277, Dilip Singh Vs. State: 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 9919 & Bhanwara Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan:
2020(3) RLW 2348 (Raj.)
41. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposes the prayer to reduce the sentence of accused-petitioner as already undergone. He fervently submits that due to the rash and negligent act of the accused-petitioner, two persons succumbed to death and many persons got seriously injured. Therefore, no leverage may be given to the accused-petitioner. (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:6749] (15 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005]
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Dilip Bahadur (Supra) rendered in Criminal Appeal No.844/2023 SLP (Criminal) No.2984 of 2018 dated 28.03.2023 after referring the judgments of State of M.P. Vs. Bablu 2014 (9) SCC 281 held as under:-
"the prime objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is necessary with the gravity nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is therefore, the solemn duty of the Court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as awarding the lesser sentence encourages any criminal and as a result of the same, the society suffers."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Dilip Bahadur set aside the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby, Hon'ble High Court upheld the conviction of respondent under Section 304A of the IPC. However, has reduced the sentence from two years to eight months, subject to prior deposit of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to be paid to family/legal heirs of the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that showing undue sympathy to the accused is unsustainable.
(Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:6749] (16 of 16) [CRLR-310/2005]
43. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the view that sentence awarded to accused-petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC commensurate with the offence committed and there is no cogent reasons for the Court to reduce the sentence of the accused-petitioner.
44. In view of the above, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. The accused-petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties are forfeited. He is directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of his sentences. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Rahul Joshi (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:52:27 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)