High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 11 BOM CK 0072

Dakaram Bhojraj Khotele vs State Of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Deori P.S.

Bombay High Court · Decided on 27 November 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. G. Giratkar, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Application No. 195 Of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 448 words
1.

Heard learned counsel Shri Rai for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Lokhande for the respondent

no. 1. None appears for the respondent no. 2.

2.

Present revision is against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deori in Summary Criminal Case No. 2047/2008 by which the

applicant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304ÂA, 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 304ÂA of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine

of Rs. 500/Â​. No separate sentence was passed in respect of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned counsel Shri Rai for the applicant has submitted that there is material omission in the evidence of P.W. 1 who has stated against the

applicant.

4.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Lokhande for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that both the judgments of trial Court and first appellate

Court are well reasoned. There is sufficient evidence against the applicant/accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W. 1

Radheshyam Shahare, hence, revision is liable to be dismissed.

5.

P.W. 1 stated that deceased was standing near pan shop at the time of incident. Accused/applicant drove his ST bus rashly and negligently and

dashed to the deceased. Accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of applicant/accused. Defence was taken that the deceased was

negligent while crossing the road but that defence was negated by the trial Court. The conviction awarded is perfectly legal and correct.

6.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is retired person aged about 70 years. He is bedridden. He is contesting

the criminal case from year 2006, therefore, lenient view be taken. Looking to the submissions and to meet the ends of justice, following order is

passed.

(i) Revision is partly allowed.

(ii) Conviction is maintained for the offence punishable under Section 304Â​A of the Indian Penal Code, however, sentence is modified as under :

(a) The applicant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304ÂA of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to pay fine of

Rs. 5,000/Â​ (Rupees Five Thousand Only). Out of fine amount, Rs. 4,000/ be paid to the legal heirs of deceased towards compensation.

(b) Fine amount be paid before the trial Court.

(c) If the applicant/accused fails to pay fine amount within a period of 15 days, then he shall undergo sentence as per the judgment of trial Court.

(iii) R & P be sent back to the trial Court.