1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2000 Smt. Nalini S. Nayar ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. A.A.Mane, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 4TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.This application challenges the order of the learned 5th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane dated 30th January 1999 under which the applicant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 330 of the I.P.C and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days, 10 days and 1 year respectively, to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Further she is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2 2.In Appeal against the said judgment and order to the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Thane dated 3rd July 2000 the applicant has been found guilty and convicted of the offence punishable under Section 338 of the I.P.C and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 3.The evidence of 6 witnesses has been recorded. P.W. 1 is the eye witness, who stated that on 13th January 1997 the accused was driving the car and dashed against one man and one woman who are injured and were taken to the hospital. P.W.2, who is the injured eye witness, deposed that the accused was in high speed while she was driving the vehicle from Lok-Upawan road. She has deposed about the injuries suffered by her. That was the fracture of one leg. In her cross examination she has refuted that she was standing outside the bus-stop. 4.P.W.3 is the other injured witness. He has also deposed that the accused came in high speed. Both his legs were fractured. He was hospitalised for 15 days. He was standing at the junction near the bus stop. He has also refuted the suggestion that he was standing outside the bus stop. 5.The accident took place with an auto-rikshaw. Evidence 3 of P.W.3 shows that the auto-rikshaw was coming in normal speed. 6.The Doctor P.W.4 has deposed about the injuries suffered by the injured witnesses. His deposition shows that the injuries were serious though not life threatening. 7.From this evidence it is clear that the case against the accused has been made out for the aforesaid offence. The impugned order is, therefore, seen to be correct. There is no material irregularity in the order. The conviction of the accused is, therefore, to be sustained. 8.However, it is seen that the accused has been involved in an offence of this kind for the first time. She is otherwise the decent homemaker. She is a family person. Aside from the negligence no further criminal intent can be imputed upon her. 9.She can, therefore, be convicted for a lesser offence of causing simple hurt under Section 323 of the I.P.C. Both the witnesses who were injured and hospitalised have recovered. P.W.3 has been adequately compensated by the Insurance Company in the claim made by him in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane. I am told by the Advocate for the applicant and the A.P.P that he was disinclined to attend Court when notice of hearing of 4 this application was served upon him. P.W.2 has attended Court pursuant to notice. P.W.2 has not made any such claim, she has, therefore, not been compensated at all. However, the pain and suffering caused to P.W.2 cannot be brushed aside. She deserves to be compensated to bring the accused to justice. Reasonable compensation that can be paid to her for the injuries seen to be caused by the negligence of the accused by way of simple hurt would be Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). 10.The accused shall pay fine of Rs.50,000/- within 4 weeks from today. The fine shall be deposited in this Court. Upon payment of such fine the sentence awarded to the accused shall stand set aside. If the fine is not paid within 4 weeks as aforesaid the order of the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Thane dated 3rd July 2000 shall be effectuated. 11.If the fine is paid, compensation of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to P.W.2 Mrs. Madhavi Shreekant Shitole in this case. 12.The Criminal Revision Application disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)