ORDER
S.L. Jain, J.
1. Petitioner Ram Bahadur stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 months and to a fine of Rs. 500/-, [in default, to undergo imprisonment for one month] vide impugned judgment dated 2-7-99 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No. 50/99.
2. The facts of the case which lead to conviction are that on the relevant date Ramnath Patel was going on his motor-cycle towards Civil Lines Square, Sagar and when he reached near Sangam Hotel, the petitioner who was driving the Commander Jeep No. MP 15-D 5017 hit Ramnath Patel which resulted in grievous injury. It is alleged that the petitioner was driving the jeep in a rash or negligent manner. The report of the incident was lodged by Ramnath Patel at Police Station, Gopalganj. He was examined by Dr. R.K. Khare who found as many as 8 injuries on his person. The offending jeep and its documents were seized. The jeep was inspected by Bharal singh Solanki who found a dent on the bonut and indicator light was also found broken. However, remaining system of the vehicle was found in working order. Ex. P-7 is the report of Bharat Singh Solanki. The applicant was arrested on 20-12-97. After usual investigation, challan was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar.
3. The case of the petitioner was that he was driving the jeep in a slow speed. It was the complainant Ramnath Patel who was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently.
4. The learned Trial Magistrate believed the prosecution case and convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and imposed a sentence of 6 months’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and also 6 months’ R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC. In default of fine a sentence of two months’ R.I. was awarded for each offence. On appeal being preferred, Addl. Sessions Judge, Sagar, set aside the conviction under Sections 338 and 279, IPC but convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 337, IPC and imposed a sentence of R.I. for 3 months with a fine of Rs. 500/- [in default of fine R.I. for one month].
5. I have heard Shri Sanjay Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Wakeel Khan learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
6. Ramnath Patel (P.W. 1) has stated that on the relevant date he was going from Sagar University towards Sagar City on his Spark motor-cycle. When he reached Civil Lines Square, Near Sangam Hotel one jeep bearing Registration No. MP 15-D 5017 hit his motor-cycle. He suffered serious injuries. Manish and Jagdish took him to the hospital where a written report was submitted by him and Dehali Nalishi (Ex. P-1) was recorded. The witnesses also stated that his motor-cycle was damaged due to the occurrence.
7. Manish (P.W. 3) has stated that on the relevant date he was standing at the petrol pump, situate near the Sangam Hotel, one Commander Jeep No. MP 15-D 5017 hit the motor-cycle which was being driven by Ramnath Patel. The jeep dragged the motor-cycle to a distance of about 30 to 40 paces. A crowd being gathered, the petitioner ran away from the spot leaving the jeep at the place of occurrence, evidence of these two witnesses has been corroborated by Jagdish (P. W. 2) who, on receiving information that his brother Ramnath Patel has suffered accident, reached at the place of occurrence. He found that his brother Ramnath was lying near the jeep and his motor-cycle was under the jeep. The motor-cycle was badly damaged. He saw the injuries on the body of his brother. He took his brother to Tilli Hospital. These witnesses have stated that the place of incident was a busy square. The accused was supposed to drive with due care and caution in such a crowded area. The petitioner was driving the vehicle at a very high speed in a very busy locality which is certainly rashness on the part of the petitioner. The accident took place on.account of his rash and negligent driving. The way in which the motor cycle was dragged to a distance of about 30 to 40 paces also indicates that the petitioner was driving the jeep rashly and negligently.
8. Tikaram Choubbey (D.W. 1) has stated that one Spark motorcycle driven by Ramnath dashed against the jeep. The motor-cycle was being driven rashly and negligently but his evidence cannot be believed. Both the Courts below believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The fact that the motor-cycle was dragged establishes that the petitioner was driving the jeep rashly and negligently. It is further corroborated by the injuries suffered by Ramnath Patel.
9. I have carefully perused the record and judgments of both the Courts below and after hearing the Counsel of both the sides. I do not find any glaring defect or error in the procedure or in the view of law or evidence taken leading to flagrant miscarriage of justice. It is true that the revisional powers of this Court are very wide but they arc purely discretionary and they must be exercised not as a matter of course but only to meet the ends of justice. This Court ordinarily interferes only when substantial question arises or where a material error affects the decision or when the order is without jurisdiction.
10. Both the Courts below have assessed the evidence properly and concluded that the petitioner was driving the jeep rashly and negligently and caused injuries to Ramnath Patel.
11. Shri Patel has also submitted that the sentenced awarded by the Courts below is too harsh. Due to the accident Ramnath Patel has sustained as many as 8 injuries. It does not appear that the learned Sessions Judge has improperly exercised the discretion in the matter of awarding sentence. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337, IPC cannot be said to be severe in the circumstances of the case, therefore, no interference is called for.
12. The concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts below on an appreciation of evidence does not call for any interference in this revision. The revision has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is on bail. His
bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender himself
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar on February 17,2003, to serve out
the remaining part of the sentence.