Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 322 (RAJ)

Shri Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-01

VINEET KOTHARI

body2006
Judgment Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.-This revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 110.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa in Criminal Appeal No. 1/19 (11/94) whereby he dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.03.1993 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judl. Magistrarte, Sikrai, Distt. Dausa in Case No. 267/1992. By the said order, the learned trial Court convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 304-A and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-For offence under Section 279, IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. The accused petitioner was also convicted for offence under Section 337, IPC and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Magistrate also directed that in default of payment of fine i.e. in total Rs. 500/-, he has to suffer one month simple imprisonment. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 18.05.1981 the accused petitioner was driving a Tractor with its trolley bearing Registration No. RSB 3346 with a group of persons who were going to attend some marriage ceremony when they were returning back on 19.05.1981 the accused petitioner was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner. At about 01.00 PM in the night when the said vehicle reached near Manpur bus stand, the said driver kept on driving the tractor at a very high speed and suddenly he turned the vehicle to right side and the trolley of the said tractor turned over as a result of which various persons travelling in the said trolley suffered injuries and one of them Ganga Sahai died in the said accident. The trial Court while trying the case, held the accused petitioner guilty for rash and negligent driving relying upon the statements made by PW. 1 Shravan, PW. 2 Khiladi Ram. PW. 5 Lhariya and PW. 6 Amar Pal who were declared hostile. The trial Court while trying the case, held the accused petitioner guilty for rash and negligent driving relying upon the statements made by PW. 1 Shravan, PW. 2 Khiladi Ram. PW. 5 Lhariya and PW. 6 Amar Pal who were declared hostile. However, the trial Court found that there is no legal principle that prosecution depends upon the number of witnesses but the reliability of the witnesses of the prosecution which is more material and on the basis of statements made by various eye-witnesses, the trial Court found the driver of the said vehicle guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Against the Judgment of trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which was failed. Hence, this revision petition before this Court under Section 397, CrPC. 3. Mr. Jain the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Courts-below have erred in convicting the accused petitioner as the said accident took place on account of bursting of tyre of the vehicle as a result of which the said trolley turned over. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce I.O. as well as the Mechanic who gave mechanical report and, therefore, the benefit should go to the accused petitioner. In the alternative, he submitted that if this Court is of the opinion, that the conviction is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, then the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him which is stated to be about 15 days. He further submitted that the incident relates to the very long past period i.e. about 25 years back. He has also raised the contention that the trial Court while awarding the sentence ought to have considered the case for grant of benefit of probation in accordance with the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State controverts the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits on the strength of the following Judgment s that there is no occasion either to interfere with the concurrent findings and the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the Courts-below nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case particularly, which resulted in the death of one Ganga Sahai. He placed reliance on the Judgement rendered in the Case of Amar lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1988 CrLJ 1, wherein this Court has held that when a precious human life is lost by a rash and negligent driving, no compassion can be shown. Undue sympathy in such cases will not only lead to miscarriage of justice but will also undermine the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal judicial system. He also placed reliance on the case of Dilip s/o Ramchandra Umare vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 CrLJ, (Bombay) 721, wherein the Bombay High Court held that in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397, CrPC concurrent finding of Courts that the accused was guilty of offence under Section 354, IPC did not warrant any interferance. Similarly, he placed reliance upon the Judgment rendered in the case of Bikasani Satyanarayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 CrLJ1435, wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397, CrPC reappreciation of evidence was not possible and the mere fact that some of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile is not a ground to throw out the case and the finding of the Court was not interfered with. 5. As against this, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to support his case with the help of the Judgment given in the Case of Suresh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (Vol.15) R.C.C. 356, wherein this Court was dealing with a case where the foot brakes of the jeep failed, but the hand brakes were in order. The Court held that on account of failure of such brakes, the incident could not be avoided, therefore, the driver could not be held responsible for rash and negligent driving. He also placed reliance upon the Judgment given in the case of A.P. Raju vs. State of Orissa, 1995 SCC (Cri) 675 wherein the Honbel Supreme Court while unholding the conviction under Section 304-A IPC held that where the occurrence took place about 15 years ago and the appellant remained on bail for the last more than 8 years, the appellant was directed to be released on Section 360, CrPC on probation of good conduct, be of good behaviour and to keep peace for a period of one year. 6. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the Judgment and in view of the over all facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused petitioner by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court, is not required to be interfered. The Courts below, on the appreciation of evidence rightly arrived at the finding of rash and negligent driving by the accused petitioner as a result of which th said trolley attached to the tractor turned over and various people suffered injuries and one died. 7. On the period of sentence, however, in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the incident is very old now and the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for 15 days, no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail and more so, the Courts-below also did not consider the case of the accused petitioner for grant of probation under Section 360, CrPC this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him subject to condition that the consolidated amount of fine under all the three offences for which the accused petitioner has been convicted by the Court below is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 15,000/. The accused petitioner will pay the said fine of Rs. 15,000/-(Rs. fiften thousand only) in lump sum within a period of one month from today. Upon failure to pay the said amount of fine, the accused petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said amount of fine in terms of this Judgment if paid within one month shall be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Ganga Sahai under the supervision of S.D.O. concerned, having jurisdiction of such area, where the legal heirs of the deceased reside. With these observations, the criminal revision petition is disposed of .