Ghan Shyam Alias Subhash and anr. Vs. State of U.P.

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj ] determination of compensation meaning of income of victim held, the term income has different connotations for different purposes. a court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.orderk.n. sinha, j.1. this revision has been filed against the order dated 15-10-1985 passed by additional sessions judge, agra, in session trial no. 94 of 1984 framing the additional charge under section 306 i. p. c.2. the brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that revisionist and others were charge sheeted for the murder of smt. meera wife of accused murari lal. the sessions court framed charge under section 302 ipc on 30-11-1984. however, later on the charge under section 306 i. p. c. was also framed on october 15, 1985. it appears that both the charges stand together hence the learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that it can either be a murder or the suicide. there is absolutely no evidence that deceased smt. meera was ever tortured.3. i have perused the charges framed. it is also not clear as to why and under what circumstances the additional charge under section 306 i. p. c. was also framed.4. the offence under section 306 ipc cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under section 302 ipc within the meaning of section 222 cr. p. c. both the offences are of distinct and different categories. the basic constituent of an offence under section 302 ipc is homicidal death whereas under section 306 ipc it is suicidal death and abetment thereof. thus, both the charges cannot go together, either the deceased had committed suicide or she was murdered. it was for the trial court to have examined the evidence collected during the investigation then framed the charge.5. in the result the revision is allowed and the order dated 15-10-1985 charging the revisionist under section 306 ipc is set aside.6. it is hereby directed that the trial court shall examine whole of the evidence collected by the investigating officer during the investigation and on that basis it may amend or alter the charge but the charge should be specific.7. the trial has become sufficiently old hence it is hereby directed that the concerned court shall.....