JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this petition is to Judgment rendered by learned II nd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1990, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed in S.C.C.No.689/1989, for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A), 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith Sections 116 and 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act (old) has been confirmed. 2. Both the Courts below concurrently held the petitioner guilty for the above referred offences and sentenced him as shown below: Sr. No. Offence Punishment (i) For offence under Sentence of six months RI Sec.279 of the IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, R.I. for one month (ii) For offence under Sentence of two years RI Sec.304(A) of the and fine of Rs.2,500/-, IPC in default, R.I. for six months. (iii) For offence under Sentence of six months Sec.337 of the IPC RI and fine of Rs.500/- in default R.I. for one month (iv) For offence under Sentence of imprisonment Sec.338 of the IPC for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, R.I. for three months (v) For offence under Sec. Sentence of R.I. for six 116 and 117 of the months and fine of Rs.2,000/- in Motor Vehicles Act (old) default, R.I. for one month. (All substantive sentences were to run concurrently) 3. Indisputably, the petitioner was employed as a driver and at the relevant time was working as Police Jeep driver at Talwada Police Station in Beed district. For attending a crime conference, P.S.I. Shaikh Ayyub, who was in charge of the Talwada Police Station at the relevant time, alongwith two Police Constables, travelled in police jeep vehicle No.MZA-354, driven by the petitioner. Admittedly, the members of the Police party started return journey in the night after having dinner at a road side hotel (dhaba). The jeep vehicle reached Georai Police Station at about 1.30 a.m. P.S.I. Bondar and some Police personnel, who were co-passengers in the said jeep vehicle, alighted there. Thereafter, the petitioner drove the jeep vehicle towards Talwada. 4. There is a bridge called, "Jamadarnicha Pool" on the highway at a distance of about half/two kms. from Georai on way to Talwada. There is river bed of river Godavari at few kilometers away in the outskirts of a small town- "Shahagad". In the early hours, a group of villagers was coming from direction of Shahagad. 4. There is a bridge called, "Jamadarnicha Pool" on the highway at a distance of about half/two kms. from Georai on way to Talwada. There is river bed of river Godavari at few kilometers away in the outskirts of a small town- "Shahagad". In the early hours, a group of villagers was coming from direction of Shahagad. They were walking on the bridge carrying "Kawad" (a bamboo lath with pitchers made up of pumpkin), containing holy water for offering it to deity in their village. The group of villagers comprised of 12 (twelve) persons. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner drove the jeep vehicle under influence of alcoholic preparation in rash and negligent manner at the relevant time. The jeep vehicle knocked down the villagers and ran over some of them. Five of such villagers coming from opposite direction were fatally injured and died instantaneously on the road. Seven villagers from the group were wounded, some of them sustained simple injuries whereas, some of them were grievously injured. The jeep vehicle was stopped by the petitioner after travelling a considerable distance and only when PW-P.S.I. Shaikh directed him to halt it. The dead bodies and injured persons were immediately rushed to Government Hospital at Georai. PW-P.S.I. Shaikh lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner. The petitioner was clinically examined in the early hours. Sample of his blood was collected and was sent to Chemical Analyser for analysis. It was revealed that he had consumed alcoholic preparation and was under influence thereof. He was charge-sheeted for the offences mentioned above. 6. The petitioner was tried before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed. The defence of the petitioner was that it is a case of only an accident, which occurred due to negligence of the villagers. He asserted that the villagers were puzzled due to headlights of the jeep vehicles. They were panicked and started running here and there. Though he attempted to save them, yet it was of no avail and the villagers violently dashed against the jeep vehicle. He asserted that he drove the vehicle with due care and caution but could not avoid the accident, which is result of the carelessness of the villagers, who had been coming from opposite direction. 7. At trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 (sixteen) witnesses and adduced certain documentary evidence. He asserted that he drove the vehicle with due care and caution but could not avoid the accident, which is result of the carelessness of the villagers, who had been coming from opposite direction. 7. At trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 (sixteen) witnesses and adduced certain documentary evidence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the I.P.C. and one under Sections 116 and 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, were proved against the petitioner. He was, therefore, held guilty and sentenced as stated earlier. Being dissatisfied, he preferred Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1990, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the revision petition. 8. Mr. Godsay would submit that admissions of injured witnesses go to show that the villagers were panicked and hence, due to their faults, the accident occurred. He would further submit that the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to notice an important fact that there was drizzling at the relevant time. He would submit that there is more probability that vision of the road was obscured due to the rains and the wiper of the jeep vehicle was not functioning. He argued that the petitioner is wrongly convicted by both the Courts below without sufficient proof of his negligent overt act or rashness in driving of the police jeep vehicle at the relevant time. Hence, he urged to allow the revision petition and acquit the petitioner of the charges. Per contra, learned A.P.P. supported the impugned Judgments. None appeared for the respondent Nos.2 to 8, who are the victims of the incident/accident. 9. It need not be reiterated that the petitioner was driving the jeep vehicle No.MZA-354 in the relevant morning at about 2.00 a.m., is undisputed. Admittedly, PW-P.S.I. Shaikh Ayyub and two Police Constables, viz., PW-Shaikh Rahim and PW-Pakhare were also travelling in the same jeep vehicle at the relevant time. There is also no dispute about the fact that five persons died as a result of the accident and seven were injured. The victims were coming from Shahagad side with pots containing holy water. There was no other traffic on the road. 10. Though the petitioner asserted that he was not at fault, yet he did not examine any witness to corroborate his such defence. The victims were coming from Shahagad side with pots containing holy water. There was no other traffic on the road. 10. Though the petitioner asserted that he was not at fault, yet he did not examine any witness to corroborate his such defence. Nor he stated during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that due to drizzling, the vision of the road was impaired. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the wiper of the jeep vehicle was out of order and, therefore, rain water clogged on the wind screen. The topographical account can be gathered from the recitals of the spot panchnama (Exh.14-B). 11. The spot panchnama (Exh.14-) is corroborated by PW-1 P.S.I.Vasant. The recitals of the spot panchnama are not disputed. The road at the place is of 19 feet width and flanked by side strips. On Eastern side, a pitcher made of pumpkin was found lying and at a short distance, there was a blood stained ‘dhoti’. The wheel marks were found at a distance of 95 feet from milestone No.6. The spot panchnama shows that the jeep vehicle was driven about 93 feet ahead of the place of incident and was apparently turned back thereafter. The jeep vehicle was found standing on the left strip at a distance of 100 feet from the place of incident. The standing position of the jeep vehicle is, however, unimportant since it has come on the record that after the incident immediately PW-14 P.S.I. Sk.Ayyub directed the petitioner to turn about the jeep vehicle and to see what had happened. The jeep vehicle was, therefore, brought back to the place of incident. What is more important is that the wheel marks were found at a distance of 93 feet away from the place of incident. 12. Coming to the version of PW-14 Sk.Ayyub, it emerges that while the jeep vehicle was being driven from overbridge, called "Jamadarnicha Pool", some persons were seen coming from opposite direction. He states that he heard certain odd sound, "Dhad! Dhad!" (Thud-Thud). He, therefore, asked the petitioner to stop the jeep vehicle. After turning of the jeep vehicle back and proceeding at short distance, it was seen that some persons were lying on the road due to dash given by the jeep vehicle. He managed help for them after asking a truck vehicle to stop. Dhad!" (Thud-Thud). He, therefore, asked the petitioner to stop the jeep vehicle. After turning of the jeep vehicle back and proceeding at short distance, it was seen that some persons were lying on the road due to dash given by the jeep vehicle. He managed help for them after asking a truck vehicle to stop. The Police Constables were asked to take the injured persons to Georai for treatment. The injured persons were rushed to Civil Hospital at Beed and thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the P.S.O. at Georai Police Station. Nothing of much importance could be gathered from his cross-examination. 13. There is eye witness account tendered by PW-3 Kishan, PW-4 Ashok, PW-5 Vishnu, PW-6 Raosaheb, PW-7 Hanumant, PW-8 Dnyandeo and PW-9 Babu. They are also injured witnesses. They categorically stated that they alongwith others were walking by the road. Their versions purport to show that the Police jeep vehicle came from opposite direction and ran over them or hit them. Their versions would show that there is a curve at the place of the incident. Some of them admitted, no doubt, that due to headlights of the jeep vehicle, their eyes were dazzled. They got frightened and moved here and there to avoid the accident. These admissions of the witnesses, however, do not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. For, he ought to have taken due care while negotiating the curve. He did not lower down the speed. He made no effort to avoid the dash to the group of persons, who were coming from opposite direction. When PW-P.S.I. Sk. Ayyub could locate the group of persons coming from opposite direction, then the petitioner could not have missed to see them. 14. It has come on record that the sky was cloudy and there was drizzling. In such a situation on the road, the petitioner was required to take more precaution while driving the jeep vehicle. The evidence on record shows that he drove the jeep vehicle in high speed and though the group of dozen of persons was coming from opposite direction, yet he did not lower down the speed. The very fact that the jeep vehicle went ahead upto 93 feet after the injured and deceased persons were knocked down is indicative of rashness committed by the petitioner while driving the Police jeep vehicle in question. 15. The very fact that the jeep vehicle went ahead upto 93 feet after the injured and deceased persons were knocked down is indicative of rashness committed by the petitioner while driving the Police jeep vehicle in question. 15. There is eye witness account tendered by PW-10 Police Constable - Pakhare, PW-13 Police Constable Sk.Akbar and PW-14 P.S.I. Sk.Ayyub. All these Police personnel were travelling in the ill-fated jeep vehicle No.MZA-354 at the relevant time. Considered together, their versions purport to show that the group of twelve (12) persons was coming from opposite direction at the place near "Jamandarnicha Pool". Their versions go to show that those group members were having pitchers made up of pumpkin containing water in their hands and were on the metal road, annexed to the tar road. The versions of these witnesses, unequivocally, established that after about 5/6 persons were knocked down, PW- P.S.I. Sk. Ayyub asked the petitioner to stop the vehicle. Thus, until the harsh sound of multiple " Thud " was heard, the petitioner was not cognizant of the fact that the jeep vehicle had knocked down those victims. It emerges from the record that the jeep vehicle practically cruised through the group of said villagers and one after another they were knocked down in succession. There is no reason coming forth to dislodge the versions of these Police witnesses. 16. Significantly, the petitioner was clinically examined in the same early morning by PW-2 Dr. Raju Unhale. His version reveals that the petitioner was found under influence of alcohol. His version reveals that breath of the petitioner emanated smell of alcohol, his speech was incoherent, gait was staggering and the pupils were dilated. The Medical Officer collected blood sample of the petitioner. He corroborated the medical certificate (Exh.38). The version of PW-2 Dr.Raju Unhale has remained unimpeached in spite of searching cross-examination. It was suggested to him that the symptoms noticed by him were due to the fact that the petitioner was frightened at the relevant time. I do not find any substance in such kind of suggestion to the witness. It is manifest that the petitioner consumed certain alcoholic preparation in the late night dinner at the road side hotel (dhaba) and was unable to control himself while driving the jeep vehicle in question. I do not find any substance in such kind of suggestion to the witness. It is manifest that the petitioner consumed certain alcoholic preparation in the late night dinner at the road side hotel (dhaba) and was unable to control himself while driving the jeep vehicle in question. It is also probable that when one P.S.I. and Police Constables got down at Georai Police Station, during short duration, the petitioner consumed some liquor and was, therefore, not former himself. Be that as it may, the evidence on record sufficiently proves that the petitioner drove the jeep vehicle in rash and negligent manner under influence of alcohol Resultantly, five persons died and seven were injured. 17. It is well settled that a rash act is primarily a over-hasty act. It is opposed to deliberate act. Still, however, a rash act can be a deliberate act where it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness. The act done with indifference as to the consequences and without weighing the result also could be termed as a rash act. It is the imperative duty of the vehicle driver to adopt reasonable and proper care and precaution. In case of "Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration" ( AIR 1975 SC 1960 ), the Apex Curt held that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. The Apex Court further observed that where the accused was driving a Bus on cross road, which knocked down a cyclist because the accused failed to look on right side while approaching the cross road, though the Bus was driven at moderate speed of 20 miles, yet the driver was negligent. It is observed that the accused did not see the deceased while crossing the road and it was only when he heard an alarm to the effect, ‘stop’ ‘stop’ that he stopped the Bus. In the present case too, the petitioner did not see the persons coming from opposite direction until at least 5/6 of them were knocked down and others were injured. This is culpable negligence on part of the petitioner. As stated earlier, while negotiating the curve, he ought to have lowered down the speed of the jeep vehicle. In the present case too, the petitioner did not see the persons coming from opposite direction until at least 5/6 of them were knocked down and others were injured. This is culpable negligence on part of the petitioner. As stated earlier, while negotiating the curve, he ought to have lowered down the speed of the jeep vehicle. His failure to take appropriate precaution has resulted into the loss of five lives and caused various injuries to the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Considering the rashness and negligence committed by the petitioner and having regard to the attending circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no perversity committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution. The petitioner was rightly convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304(A), 338, 337, 279 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 116 read with 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 18. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The substantive sentence of two (2) years awarded to the petitioner cannot be termed as harsh in view of the nature of the offence. The Apex Court in "Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab" ( AIR 1980 SC 84 ) observed that no compassion should be shown in such fatal accident cases when a life has been lost and the circumstances show that the driving was harsh. The sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court does not, therefore, call for interference. For, it does not offend doctrine of proportionality. 19. For the reasons aforestated, I do not find any substance in the revision application. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner shall immediately surrender to the bail before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Beed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate may issue arrest warrant, if the petitioner will not immediately surrender to the bail and may ensure that he undergoes the further sentence, which has remained suspended. Revision application dismissed.