- (1.) T. P. Garg, J. Sunder Lal, son of Kali Charan Jatav, has filed the present revision against the order, dated 29-5-1984 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1984, whereby the appeal riled by him was dismissed and conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A, IPC and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one year was passed by 1st Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that on 7-2-81, Chokey Lal P. W. lodged an FIR at P. S. Hari Parvat, Agra to the effect that his son, Raju, was going on a scooter from the shop and when he was a little ahead of St. John Chowk, Bus No. UTR 6515 came from behind and without giving any horn, hit against his son, Raju, and on account of which, Raju received grievous injuries and died on the spot. THE occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Kali Charan, Mohammad Ali and others, P. Ws. who got hold of the driver of the bus and took him to the Police Sta tion, where the report was lodged. THE case was investigated and Sunder Lal, driver of the bus, accused, was tried for offence under Sections 279/304 IPC. In support of its case, prosecution examiend as many as four P. Ws. namely, Kali Charan P. W. 1, Chokey Lal PW. 2, Dr. Ajit Dhinkar P. W 3 and S. L Sovaran Singh, P. W. 4. The accused has denied the allega tions. He has, however, admitted that he was driving the aforesaid bus on the aforesaid date, and had made a report Kha-1 about the occurrence. He has admitted that death of Raju was caused on account of his being run over by the Bus. But, according to him, the deceased was inexperienced and he tried to overtake the bus and on account of which, he hit the bus and was run over. However, on the other hand, the testimony of Kali Charan P W1 is satisfactory and reliable. He is an independent witness and was present on the spot when the occurrence took place. He has categorically stated that the accused was driving the bus at a very high speed and he hit the scooter driver, Raju. His state ment has not been challenged on behalf of the accused on any material point. The accused examined one Ram Kishan, conductor of the Bus, who has stated that Raju hit the bus from behind. But then the evidence of his witness is con trary to the defence version and the same has, therefore, rightly been rejected by the trial court. The testimony of P. Ws. being satisfactory, reliable, cogent and convinc ing, the same has been rightly believed while defence version being in the nature of an excuse has been rightly rejected. The convic tion of the petitioner is thus maintained even on merits.
(3.) AS regards sentence suffice will it be to say that already the courts below have taken a very lenient view in this regard by imposing a fine of R. s 1,000 only on the accused. There being no scope for any reduction in the amount of fine imposed by way of sentence, the same is maintained. In view of the foregoing, this revision fails and is dismissed. The stay order in respect of realisa tion of half of the amount of fine stands vacated. The court concerned shall take im mediate steps to realise the fine from the petitioner by taking appropriate action in accordance with law. Revision dismissed. .;