1979 JTR(SC) 137
1979 ACJ 475 ; 1979 AIR(SC) 1327 ; 1979 CriR(SC) 308 ; 1979 CrLJ 1036 ; 1979 CrLJ 1136 ; 1979 CrLJ 36 ; 1980 MLJ(Cri) 76 ; 1980 1 SCC 320 ; 1980 SCC(Cri) 163 ; 1980 SCC(Cri) 23 ; 1979 3 SCR 169 ; 1979 UJ 262 ; 1979 KHC 792
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A.D. Koshal, JJ.
Baldevji Bhathiji Thakore – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1975
Decided On : 15-02-1979
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.304(a)
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 – Probation of Offenders Act – Order Of Acquittal – In this appeal by Special Leave, the appellant was convicted under S. 304A, I. P. C. and was sentenced to one years R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/- by the High Court after reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in favour of the appellant – Held, High Court has given good and cogent reasons for displacing the findings of the Magistrate that the prosecution was not able to prove the charge against the appellant – There is clear finding to show that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by rash and negligent driving – He had tried to run over the deceased while the deceased was trying to cross the road – Appellant did not make any attempt to save the deceased by swerving to the other side when there was sufficient space – Court do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. – It was said that the appellant may be treated under the Probation of Offenders Act – High Court has considered this aspect and refused to exercise its discretion and court fully agree with the view of the High Court – There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed – Appeal Dismissed
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 – Probation of Offenders Act – Order Of Acquittal – In this appeal by Special Leave, the appellant was convicted under S. 304A, I. P. C. and was sentenced to one years R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/- by the High Court after reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in favour of the appellant – Held, High Court has given good and cogent reasons for displacing the findings of the Magistrate that the prosecution was not able to prove the charge against the appellant – There is clear finding to show that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by rash and negligent driving – He had tried to run over the deceased while the deceased was trying to cross the road – Appellant did not make any attempt to save the deceased by swerving to the other side when there was sufficient space – Court do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. – It was said that the appellant may be treated under the Probation of Offenders Act – High Court has considered this aspect and refused to exercise its discretion and court fully agree with the view of the High Court – There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed – Appeal Dismissed
Judgment
FAZAL ALI, J.:- In this appeal by Special Leave, the appellant was convicted under S. 304A, I. P. C. and was sentenced to one years R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/- by the High Court after reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in favour of the appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the judgment of the High Court and of the Magistrate. The High Court has given good and cogent reasons for displacing the findings of the Magistrate that the prosecution was not able to prove the charge against the appellant. There is clear finding to show that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by rash and negligent driving. He had tried to run over the deceased while the deceased was trying to cross the road. The appellant did not make any attempt to save the deceased by swerving to the other side when there was sufficient space. We do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant.
2. On the question of sentence, it was said that the appellant may be treated under the Probation of Offenders Act. The High Court has considered this aspect and refused to exercise its discretion and we fully agree with the view of the High Court. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1979 SC 1327