- (1.)It was alleged against the petitioner that on 18-2-1986 at about 11.30 a.m. the petitioner came driving an autorickshaw with full speed and dashed with one Laduben the original complainant who was proceeding carrying a bundle of brinjal just outside Jamalpur Gate as a result of which Laduben fell down on the ground and became unconscious. The petitioner immediately went away, however, one Vastabhai, the brother of complainant's husband who was present there took down the number of the autorickshaw and took complainant to hospital. On the basis of the complaint filed by Laduben, the petitioner was arrested and was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate at the end of the trial after appreciating the evidence produced before him found that the charges levelled against the petitioner proved and convicted him and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months in each of the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further 30 days. However, the learned Magistrate ordered to run the sentence concurrently.
(2.)Now, two courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 279, I.P.C. by rash and negligent driving so as to endanger human life and has caused injury to the complainant by such rash and negligent driving and thereby committed the offence under Sections 337 and 338 of I.P.C. In my view, it is not possible for me to take a different view as I am also cinvinced by the reasonings recorded by the Appellate Court. In my view, the evidence recorded by the courts below cannot be termed as perverse which may warrant interference even at the revision stage. I, therefore, accept the findings recorded by the Courts below. Mr. S. K. Bukhari, learned Advocate for the petitioner fairly conceded at the time of hearing that there is no substance in this Revision Application. However, he submitted on the question of sentence and requested me to take a lenient view of the matter.(Para 3)
(3.)Considering the fact that the incident is of 1986 and especially when the petitioner is young, after the lapse of about six years instead of sending the petitioner to jail, the ends of justice shall be met if the petitioner is saddled with paying the amount of fine a portion of which may be ordered to be paid to the complainant. The complainant is required to be paid some amount in view of the fact that the petitioner neither stopped his rickshaw after knocking down the complainant nor cared to take complainant to hospital.(Para 3)