Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 811 (RAJ)

Nopa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-27

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 14.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Appeal No. 29/1995 whereby the appellate court has upheld the judgment dated 22.8.1995 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Original Case No. 90/1990 convicting and sentencing the petitioner as below:- (1) 279 I.P.C. 6 months' RI and Rs. 500/- as fine and in default to further undergo 1 month's SI. (2) 337 I.P.C. 6 months' RI and Rs. 400/- as fine and in default to further undergo 20 days' SI. (3) 338 I.P.C. 1 year's RI and Rs. 500/- as fine and in default to further undergo 1 month's SI. (4) 304-A I.P.C. 2 years' RI and Rs. 500/- as fine and in default to further undergo 1 month's SI. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR was filed by one Bhagwana Ram at Police Station, Churu alleging inter alia that he was travelling in Rajasthan Roadways Bus No. RNP 3345 going from Churu to Ratan Nagar. The bus started from Churu at about 8 O' clock in the morning. At about 8:15 AM, when the bus had travelled a distance of about 3 kms., the bus driver Nopa Ram drove the bus rashly and negligently and drove the bus into a Tempo No. RJ 10/0179. The tempo was being driven by Asgar and about 15-16 persons were sitting in it. The tempo driver died at the spot and 15-16 persons were lying on the road in an injured condition. The driver disclosed his own name to be Nopa Ram on enquiry. 4. On the basis of this report, FIR Case No. 1/1990 was registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. During the course of investigation, it came to light that 9 persons met with an unfortunate death as a result of the accident. The police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences mentioned above. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied the allegations of the prosecution in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and examined two witnesses in defence. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences mentioned above. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied the allegations of the prosecution in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and examined two witnesses in defence. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as above. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. Now the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's conviction is grossly illegal. There is ample evidence on the record of the case to show that the road on which the petitioner was driving the bus was a single lane road. It was further contended that the tempo driver had taken on board 15-16 persons whereas it was a 12 sealer vehicle only. It was submitted that the bus was driven at the edge of the road whereas the tempo driver drove the tempo right on the middle of the road. It was further contended that the weather conditions were foggy and, therefore, the petitioner could not see the tempo coming from front. It was also contended that the bus was driven at the edge of the road and on the left side, the road was full of pot holes, as a result whereof, the petitioner could not take the bus off the road resulting into the accident. It was thus submitted that the conviction of the petitioner deserves to be quashed. In the alternative, it was prayed that since the incident is of the year 1990 and the petitioner has remained in custody for a substantial period of time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contended that the plea which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case about the foggy weather conditions is absolutely false. It was submitted that even if it is assumed that the conditions were foggy, then the petitioner was required to exercise a greater deal of caution while driving the vehicle to avoid any accident because of poor visibility on the road. It was submitted that even if it is assumed that the conditions were foggy, then the petitioner was required to exercise a greater deal of caution while driving the vehicle to avoid any accident because of poor visibility on the road. It was further submitted that the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that the conditions were foggy at the time of incident and he could not take the bus off the road because of the damaged road condition on the left side. It was argued that from the very tenor of the statement of the accused, it is apparent that the petitioner had seen the tempo coming from the opposite side and thus, he should have slowed down the bus immediately for avoiding the accident. The petitioner did not take any step to slow down the bus causing nine deaths and injuries to number of persons. It was thus prayed that the conviction of the petitioner does not call for any interference and the revision petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar, perused the judgments impugned and the record. 8. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that large number of prosecution witnesses who were sitting in the tempo when the accident took place have deposed against the petitioner. The witnesses PW1 Sanwar Mal, PW3 Nathu, PW4 Asgar, PW5 Naurang, PW6 Mohd. Mustaqim, PW7 Hakim and PW8 Navratan have all stated that the tempo was going at a slow pace and that the tempo driver blew the horn frequently in order to warn the bus driver but the bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and at a great pace due to which the accident occurred. The witness PW15 Amilal was the Investigating Officer of the case and he has stated that the Roadways bus was being driven down a slope whereas the tempo was climbing up the hill. The witness PW10 Jagdish is the photographer who took the photographs of the scene of occurrence and the photographs have been exhibited on the record as Ex.P/4 to Ex.P/9. 9. The witness PW10 Jagdish is the photographer who took the photographs of the scene of occurrence and the photographs have been exhibited on the record as Ex.P/4 to Ex.P/9. 9. The vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has been that the bus was being driven on the edge of the road whereas the tempo driver was driving the tempo on the middle of the road and despite the horn being blown by the bus driver, the tempo driver did not take the tempo off the road, resulting into the accident. This contention/argument is fallacious on the face of it and has to be rejected at the outset. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the tempo driver did not take the tempo off the road, then too there could not have been any justification for the petitioner to have driven the bus right into the tempo. The petitioner has taken a plea in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that there was a dense fog on the date of occurrence. The road where the accident took place was a single lane road and that the bus was full of passengers. Suffice it to say that as the conditions were admittedly foggy, there was a greater burden on the bus driver (petitioner) to have driven the bus at a slower pace and with a greater caution because the visibility admittedly was low. The bus was being driven down the slope and the tempo was driven uphill. Thus, admittedly, the tempo could not have been driven at any great speed whatsoever. Otherwise also, the tempo, which is a three wheeler vehicle, is not built for speed. The petitioner has not stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he tried to stop the bus on seeing the tempo. 10. The photographs Ex.P/4 to Ex.P/9 reveal an entirely different story from what is projected by the counsel for the petitioner. The photographs clearly show that the tempo is on extreme left side of the road and half of the tempo is off the road. The bus is completely on the road and even the left wheel of the bus has not gone off the road. Therefore, apparently, it is a case wherein, despite foggy condition, the petitioner, who was driving the Roadways bus down the hill, drove the same at a great speed causing the accident. The bus is completely on the road and even the left wheel of the bus has not gone off the road. Therefore, apparently, it is a case wherein, despite foggy condition, the petitioner, who was driving the Roadways bus down the hill, drove the same at a great speed causing the accident. As per the Rules & practice of driving the vehicles on the road, precedence is always given to a vehicle coming up the hill. The vehicle which is going down the slope has to be slowed down and taken to the side so that the vehicle climbing up the hill can pass through. The petitioner did not take any such precaution. From the statements of the witnesses, which have been perused by this Court in their minutest detail, it is apparent that almost every witness who saw the accident has stated that the petitioner drove the bus rashly and negligently and at a great speed. Therefore, the rashness and negligence of the petitioner in causing the accident is writ large on the face of the record. Thus, the conviction of the petitioner does not call for any interference in this case whatsoever. 11. Now coming to the question of sentence, as has been discussed above, the rash and negligent action of the petitioner resulted in death of nine (9) innocent persons. The collision was so severe that one side of the tempo was virtually destroyed in the accident. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the accused petitioner does not deserve any leniency on the question of sentence also.The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He will surrender and serve out the remaining sentence.Record be sent back forthwith.Revision dismissed. *******