IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1258 of 2010
DEV NARAYAN SAHNI
...PETITIONER
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
...OPPOSITE PARTY
For the petitioner :Mr. Nasrul Hoda Khan &
:Mr. Irshad
For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP
-----------
03. 26.10.2010 Heard counsel for the parties.
Rule confined to the question of sentence only.
Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of
the State.
With the consent of the parties, this application is
now being disposed of.
Petitioner was tried and convicted for offences
punishable under sections 279,337 and 304A IPC and sentenced
to undergo S.I. for four months, S.I. for six months and S.I for
one and a half years respectively. The occurrence had taken
place on 30.11.2000. Four-year-old daughter of the informant
(P.W.1) was run over by a bus as a result whereof she died
instantaneously. Petitioner was apprehended and tried for the
said charge(s). At the trial, two witnesses were examined.
Informant herself examined as P.W.1, whereas P.W.2 (husband
of the informant) was also examined who supported the
prosecution case, as spelt out by the informant in her deposition.
Learned trial court on a careful appraisal of evidence and
materials on record including oral evidence found the testimony
2
of P.W.1 trustworthy and unblemished. P.W.1 in her cross-
examination eloquently gave reasons for identifying the
petitioner at the dock. Consequently, learned trial court found
that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved beyond
shadow of reasonable doubts. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order of conviction, petitioner preferred Cr.
Appeal No. 14/06. Learned lower appellate court (F.T.C.-II,
Samastipur) by judgment dated 29.05.2010 dismissed the appeal
after re-scanning the materials on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that
the evidence of P.W.1 was not sufficient and convincing enough
to implicate the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. I have
perused the judgment of the trial court. Paragraph 8 deals with
the evidence of P.W.1. From perusal of the same, it appears that
reasons/circumstances indicated by this P.W. in order to claim
identification of the petitioner as the driver of bus which ran
over the daughter of the informant has been accepted by the trial
court and affirmed in appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
the occurrence had taken place on 30.11.2000 and petitioner had
to fight criminal litigation for about six years. Learned trial court
convicted him for the said charges in the year 2006. It is
contended that fighting litigation for such a long time is a shade
of punishment. It is next contended that at the time of recording
conviction he was found aged about 65 years. It is further stated
that petitioner is now aged about 70 years and has left the
3
profession of driving commercial vehicle and is confined to his
house.
This Court finds force in the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner that fighting criminal litigation have
manifold exasperating effects. It further appears that at the time
of recording conviction, he was found aged about 65 years.
Having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court is
satisfied that a lessor punishment, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, would subserve the ends of justice.
Accordingly while upholding the judgment and
order of conviction recorded by learned trial court and affirmed
by learned lower appellate court, the sentence recorded under
section 304A IPC is reduced to S.I. for nine months. Other
part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall remain intact.
With this modification in sentence, the application is
dismissed.
( Kishore K. Mandal )
hr