Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1022 (RAJ)

Hamir Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2010-05-12

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.04.1994 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 8/1994 whereby the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 11.10.1993 as passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Balesar in Criminal Case No. 909/1993 convicting the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and sentencing him to 3 months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC; to 3 months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 337 IPC; and to 1 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC; and to further imprisonment in default of payment of fine for a period of one week each for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and for a period of 1 month for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. 2. The accusations against the petitioner had essentially been that on 14.05.1989 at about 02:00 p.m., with rash or negligent driving of the bus bearing registration number RNN 9534 on Jodhpur-Shergarh road, he caused the accident by hitting the trolley of a tractor bearing registration number RJD 757 wherefor the trolley and bus suffered damage; and two passengers in the bus sustained injuries, one of whom died on the way to hospital. Upon submission of the charge-sheet after investigation, the petitioner was charged of the offences aforesaid. 3. The learned Magistrate, after taking the evidence and hearing the parties, found proved the essential facts that the petitioner, while rashly and negligently driving the vehicle in question hit the stationary trolley whereby the vehicles suffered damage and two passengers in the bus, Deva Ram and Shaitana Ram sustained injuries; and Deva Ram, about 18 years of age, died for such injuries. While holding the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC, the learned Magistrate declined the prayer for grant of probation and sentenced him as aforesaid. While holding the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC, the learned Magistrate declined the prayer for grant of probation and sentenced him as aforesaid. The learned Additional Sessions Judge endorsed the findings of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner with the following amongst other observations:- " ;g nq?kZVuk dk dkj.k feuh cl vkSj bl cl ds vkil esa dEihVh'ku djus ls rFkk cl M~kbZoj ds ckj&ckj ihNs dh vksj ns[kus ls vkSj ;g tkurs gq, fd lM+d ij nksuksa fdukjsa ij feV~Vh vkbZ gqbZ gS] rst jQrkj ls pykus ls cl ds Lyhi gks tkus ls gqbZ gSA Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDr dh okgu lapkyu esa Hkkjh mis{kk jgh gSA " 4. Assailing the judgments and orders aforesaid, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has strenuously contended that the accident occurred as a result of the collision of the rear outer wheel of the bus with the trolley of the tractor; and such an accident cannot be said to have been caused by the petitioner by any rash or negligent act. It has further been submitted that the statements of the witnesses do not substantiate the charge and on the contrary, the only deduction available from the material on record and the surrounding circumstances is of innocence of the petitioner; and the learned subordinate Courts have acted illegally and with irregularity in convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor has duly supported the orders impugned. 5. The submissions of the learned counsel have been given a thoughtful consideration and the record has been examined. 6. The submissions as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner essentially turn on appreciation of evidence; and with the subordinate Courts having examined the entire record and having returned the findings with proper appreciation of evidence, there does not appear any case for interference in such findings on facts in this revision petition. Moreover, after having examined the record, this Court is satisfied that the findings do not suffer from illegality or irregularity. Moreover, after having examined the record, this Court is satisfied that the findings do not suffer from illegality or irregularity. The testimony of the informant and eye-witness Karan Singh PW-2 is itself sufficient in proof of all the basic facts against the petitioner that the vehicle was being driven by him rashly or negligently for which its rear portion hit against the trolley causing substantial damage to the two vehicles and injuries to the persons aforesaid; and then, the trolley was dragged for about 10 feet and the bus came to halt further 50-60 feet ahead. This testimony finds due corroboration in the statement of Khangar Singh PW-3 and so also from the site inspection report Ex.P/5. Of course, PW-8 Shaitana Ram, the other injured person and brother of the victim Deva Ram attempted to make the uncertain statement that the speed of the bus was neither fast nor slow; and denied the part of his police statement on rash and negligent driving but then, could not deny the factum of accident and resultant injuries leading to death of Deva Ram. In any case, when the learned subordinate Courts have held the charges against the petitioner substantiated for other cogent evidence on record, there does not appear any reason for this Court to take a different view of the matter in revisional jurisdiction. 7. In an overall view of the material available on record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has rightly been convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. However, so far the aspect of punishment is concerned, it is noticed that the incident occurred way back on 14.05.1989, and the petitioner has been facing this case for about 21 years. The petitioner was about 25 years of age at the time of the incident in question, and has undergone imprisonment for about 18 days after dismissal of the appeal on 04.04.1994 and before he was released after suspension of sentence in this revision petition on 21.04.1994. The petitioner was about 25 years of age at the time of the incident in question, and has undergone imprisonment for about 18 days after dismissal of the appeal on 04.04.1994 and before he was released after suspension of sentence in this revision petition on 21.04.1994. Even if the plea of probation be not acceded, looking the overall circumstances, this Court is of opinion that no useful purpose would be served with further imprisonment of the petitioner at this length of time; and that interest of justice shall be served if the total sentence of imprisonment for the offences aforesaid be reduced to that of the period of imprisonment already undergone but with enhancement of the amount of fine. Though this Court would have considered awarding the amount of fine to the heirs of the victim but such a proposition does not appear appropriate in this case particularly when it is noticed that the victim Deva Ram was about 18 years of age and his brother Shaitana Ram PW-8, who was a co-passenger in the vehicle in question, for the reasons best known to him, made the statement in the Court as if to wane the prosecution case. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. While the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC is maintained, the sentence awarded to him is modified in the manner that he is awarded the sentence of imprisonment in total of the period already undergone but with the fine to the tune of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) for the offence under Section 279 IPC, to the tune of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) for the offence under Section 337 IPC, and to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month each in default of payment of fine for the offences under Sections 279 IPC and 337 IPC and for a period of 3 months in default of payment of fine for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner shall make payment of the amount of fine within three months from today failing which the Trial Court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law.Revision party allowed. *******