- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The revisionist Rajeev Kumar was the driver of bus No. U. P. 81b-4097 and he accidented his said bus against the cycle of Mahendra Pal Singh, injured, PW 5, on 10-7-1998 at 8 p. m. at the turning of Sigharpur, when he was going with his wife Chandrawati. The accident proved fatal for the wife who died on the spot. FIR of the accident was lodged by Yogendra Pal, PW-2 which was registered at the police Station by Constable Mahendra Pal, PW1. Post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased was performed by PW-3 Dr. Sayeed Ahmad.
(2.) FIR and follow up investigation resulted into charge-sheeting revisionist who was tried by Additional. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Aligarh, in case number 505 of 2003. Finding guilt of the revisionist proved to the hilt trial Magistrate convicted the revisionist for offences under Sections 279, 337, 427, and 304-A IPC and sentenced him for 4 months imprisonment on the first count, 6 months imprisonment on the second Court, and 2 years imprisonment for each on the third and last count, vide his impugned judgment and order dated 25- 8-2004. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2004 before Session's Judge, Aligarh. His said appeal was heard and dismissed by Additional Session's Judge/court No. 6, Aligarh vide him, impugned judgment and order dated 13-10-2006. Hence, this revision. I have heard Sri M. K. Rajvanshi in support of this revision and the learned AGA in opposition. Learned Counsel for the revisionist did not challenge the conviction part of the order and accepted that the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below is justified and no adverse comment can be made against the conviction of the revisionist. He, therefore, argued only on the question of sentence and contended that since it was a case of accident no useful purpose will be served by keeping the revisionist in jail and, therefore, his remaining part of sentence be altered into fine.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of the revisionist. In this case accident occurred in 1998. Since then nine years has lapsed. The revisionist does not have any criminal history. If was his first offence which in fact was his negligence. He was reckless in his duty. He has remained in jai for 8 months now as his appeal was dismissed on 13-10-2006. Now in my opinion no useful purpose will be served by incarcerating him into jail for remaining period of imprisonment which is one year and 4 months. Thus in the fitness of things I consider it appropriate to alter the sentence of revisionist to the period of imprisonment already under gone with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be paid to PW 5 Mahendra Pal Singh, who is the husband of the deceased and injured in the case. This revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the revisionist as recorded by the trial Magistrate vide his impugned judgment and order dated 25-8-2004 as is confirmed by the lower appellate Court, is hereby maintained but his sentence is altered to the period of imprisonment already undergone with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be realised from the revisionists as arrears of land revenue within one month from the date of communication of this order by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4 Aligarh. As soon as the compensation amount is realised the same shall be paid to the injured husband PW. 5 Mahendra Pal Singh within one week thereafter by the Magistrate concerned by noticing the injured. If injured is not available then the compensation shall be paid to the family members of the deceased who is entitle to it. Revisionist shall be released from jail only after the compensation is deposited by him. In the event of failure to deposit the compensation within the time allowed by this judgment revisionist shall under go remaining part of his sentence as has been awarded to him by the trial Magistrate. Revision partly allowed. .;