Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 543 (RAJ)

Binja Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-17

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant revision petition under Section 397 CrPC, accused-petitioner Binja Ram has challenged the impugned Judgment (sic) 21.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2003, by which the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment dated 9.2.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Senior Division), Bilara (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 339/1998 has been up-held. 2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for disposal of this criminal revision, in a nut shell, are that on 211.1997, PW. 1 Bhawar Lal lodged an FIR(Ex. 1) with the Police Station, Dangiawas alleging therein that the petitioner was driver on bus No. RJ.19-P/0979, which left Pipar Road at about 6:00 A.M. At about 7:10 A.M. thebus reached unmanned railway crossing at village Aasanada and the rear portion of the bus was hit by the goods-train coming from Asanada, as a result of which seven persons died several persons received injuries. After trial, the trial Court, vide Judgment and order dated 9.2.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 & 279 IPC. Being aggrieved with the Judgment and order of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide impugned Judgment and order dated 21.2005. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the Judgment s and orders passed by the Courts below and carefully gone through the record of the case. 4. From the statement of prosection witnesses, it is established that on the day of the accident, there was fog restraining the vision upto ten or fifteen feet only. There is direct evidence of passengers of the said bus that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by petitioner Binja Ram and he took the bus to the wrong side. The prosecution witnesses have further stated that on account of fog, they asked the petitioner to slow down the speed but no heed was paid by the petitioner to their suggestion and took the bus on the railway track. There is evidence of PW. 13 Mangla Ram and PW. 16 Gyana Ram that the bus was taken on a wrong side, which resulted in the accident. There is evidence of PW. 13 Mangla Ram and PW. 16 Gyana Ram that the bus was taken on a wrong side, which resulted in the accident. Even these two witnesses have specifically stated that the accident took place on account of negligence of the petitioner. 5. PW. 2 Nasir has stated that despite there being fog, the petitioner was driving the bus with the speed of 60 KM/H. PW. 3 Rehmat Khan stated that the petitioner was driving the bus with high speed. PW. 5 Noor Khan has stated that despite fog, the bus was being driven with a high speed and resultantly it deviated from the main road and reached on a wrong track. Likewise, PW. 6 Chandra Ram, PW. 7 Oma Ram and PW. 8 Babu Ram have stated that the petitioner took the bus on the wrong side. PW. 9 Kana Ram has stated that the bus was being driven by the petitioner in a zig zag manner and despite being forbade, the petitioner did not slow down the speed. PW. 14 Bhanwar Lal has stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner. PW. 15 Hukma Ram has specifically stated that the petitioner was the driver of the bus. PW. 17 Gheesa Ram has stated that the bus was taken to the wrong side and it reached the railway crossing and the accident resulted on account of rash and negligence driving of the bus by the petitioner. PW. 18 Pukh Raj has stated that when the bus reached on the railway-track, the petitioner jumped down from the bus and the bus came in the contract of the goods-train. PW. 19 Gordhan Ram has stated that instead of taking the bus on the left side, the petitioner took the bus on the railway track which resulted in the accident. PW. 20 Heera Ram, PW. 21 Sadique Khan and PW. 22 Umed Ali have stated that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner. 6. All the aforesaid witnesses were travelling in the bus involved in the accident. The prosecution witnesses have specifically stated that there was fog in the fateful morning of the accident and there was clear vision upto 10 to 15 feed only but the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner despite being forbade by the passengers. 6. All the aforesaid witnesses were travelling in the bus involved in the accident. The prosecution witnesses have specifically stated that there was fog in the fateful morning of the accident and there was clear vision upto 10 to 15 feed only but the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner despite being forbade by the passengers. It has also come in the evidence that the petitioner took the bus on the wrong side and left the bus on the railway track. When the bus was on the railway track, the petitioner, who was on the stearing of the bus, jumped down from the bus and put the life of the passengers endangered. In the accident, seven persons lost their life and several persons sustained grievous injuries. Had the bus been driven with a moderate speed and required care would have been taken due to fog, the accident could have been avoided. 7. Both the Courts below, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, arrived at the conclusion that despite there being fog, the petitioner, being a driver, did not take all the necessary precautions and drove the bus rashly, negligently and in a zig zag manner. He did not even pay heed to the suggestions put by passengers and took the bus on a wrong side. He also ignored the danger-symbol near the unmanned railway track and took the bus there. On seeing the goods-train coming, the petitioner jumped down from the bus and put the life of the passengers endangered. Thus bus was hit by the goods train, in which seven persons lost their life and several persons sustained injuries. I see no reasons or grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below which is based on proper appreciation, scanning and evaluation of the evidence on record. 8. A Three Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, in Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, 1975 (4) SCC 649 , held that it is not the practice of the Court to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examining whether the finding of fact concurrently arrived is correct or not and it is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice that this Court would interfere with such finding of fact. Similar view has been taken by the Honble Apex Court in State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 , Pritam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1988 (1) Crimes 314 (Raj.), Vimal vs. Sukumar Anna Patil & Anr., 1981 Cr.LJ 210 (Bom) and Deb Narayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder (Smt.), 2003 (1) SCC 303. 9. In view of the settled legal proposition, on close scrutiny of the evidence produced by the prosecution in the instant case, I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality. Both the Courts below concurrently found the petitioner guilty for the offence, for which he has been convicted and sentenced. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that any manifest illegality or grave and serious injustice has been caused to the petitioner. In the circumstances, therefore, it is not a fit case warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 10. Consequently, the revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly. The application for suspension of sentence also stands dismissed.