Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 903 (RAJ)

Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-27

P.K.LOHRA

body2016
ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Unsuccessful in his attempt to assail the judgment dated 25th of September, 2002 rendered by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) Abu Road (for short, 'learned trial Court') before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. At the threshold, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC and awarded following sentences:- S. No. Under Section Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 1 279 IPC Six Months Simple Imprisonment - - 2 304-A IPC Two Years Rigorous Imprisonment 4,000/- One month's Rigorous Imprisonment 2. Being aggrieved by judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while affirming judgment of learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal. 3. Fact apposite for the purpose of this revision petition are that complainant, P.W.2 Bhanwar Lal lodged an FIR with Police Station Abu Road on 13th of June 1998 with a specific allegation that accused/petitioner has caused an accident by driving jeep-taxi RST 1359 rashly and negligently causing death of his brother, Manna Ram. A specific allegation is made in the FIR that vehicle was driven at a fast speed and the driver lost its control over the same and eventually dashed with a pole of telephone lines and turned turtle. As a consequence of accident, Manna Ram was crushed and expired on spot. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The charges were framed against the accused-petitioner and accused-petitioner denied all the charges. Before the learned trial Court, the prosecution examined ten witnesses including the Investigating Officer. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court also affirmed the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court. It is in that background petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court also affirmed the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court. It is in that background petitioner has approached this Court. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has not challenged the concurrent findings recorded by learned Courts below to the extent petitioner is held guilty for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. However, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that there are certain mitigating circumstances for reducing the sentence awarded by both the learned Courts below, and therefore, taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, sentences awarded to the accused-petitioner be reduced to the sentence he has already undergone. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since occurrence of the incident nearly two decades have lapsed and during interregnum petitioner has suffered a lot. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove MTO report and in the accident no other vehicle was involved. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on following judgments:- 1. Ismail v. Police Sub. Inspector Hospet, 2013 (2) CJ (Cri.) (SC) 374 2. Jita Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1035 3. Rahim v. State of Rajasthan, 2011 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 331 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed prayer of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that both the learned Courts below have recorded finding against the accused-petitioner, and therefore, it is not desirable to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner. In the alternative, learned Public Prosecutor submits that if the Court feels inclined to reduce the sentence already undergone by the accused-petitioner, family of the victim be adequately compensated inasmuch as due to accident Manna Ram has died at the age of 55 years. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments of learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court and thoroughly scanned record of the case. 7. The entire prosecution case, in the instant matter, hinges on the testimony of two alleged ocular witnesses namely P.W.1 Sadlaram and P.W.3 Talsaram. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments of learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court and thoroughly scanned record of the case. 7. The entire prosecution case, in the instant matter, hinges on the testimony of two alleged ocular witnesses namely P.W.1 Sadlaram and P.W.3 Talsaram. Although both the witnesses have deposed that accident has occurred in their presence, but interestingly P.W.1 Sadlaram, in his deposition, has denied presence of P.W.3 Talsaram at the scene of occurrence. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned trial Court, on cumulative reading of statements of both the witnesses in conjunction with the medical evidence and other evidence, has recorded a definite finding that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. The aforesaid view of learned trial Court is affirmed by the learned appellate Court. Therefore, in totality, I am not persuaded to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. Otherwise also learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded on concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below to the extent petitioner is held guilty. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also candidly submitted that, while maintaining conviction, some of the mitigating factors having direct ramification on the incident be considered for reducing the sentence already undergone by the accused-petitioner. 9. Taking into account the entire fact scenario and the concession made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel persuaded to accede to prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner. For granting indulgence to the petitioner, a very vital fact that incident is of almost two decades old is very much significant apart from the fact that trial remained pending for more than four years. Thereafter appeal was decided and this revision petition is pending before this Court for last almost thirteen years. That apart, the judgment of Supreme Court in Ismail (supra) and this Court in Rahim (supra) and Jita Ram (supra) are worth reliance in the backdrop of peculiar facts of the instant case. 10. While considering the passage of time and the mental agony and harassment suffered by the accused-petitioner, this Court in the case of Rahim (supra) has held:- "9. I have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. While considering the passage of time and the mental agony and harassment suffered by the accused-petitioner, this Court in the case of Rahim (supra) has held:- "9. I have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the incident took place in the year 1993 and the accused/petitioner underwent imprisonment for about 18 days. The petitioner has undergone mental agony, harassment and financial burden in facing the investigation, trial of the case and in prosecuting the appeal and this revision. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be secured if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him and fine is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- out of which Rs. 8,000/- will be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Khamana Ram as compensation." 11. Therefore, the revision petition deserves acceptance in part subject to modification that sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner be reduced to already undergone while enhancing the fine from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-. The accused petitioner is directed to deposit amount of fine of Rs. 35,000/- within three months from the date of the order before the learned trial Court. Upon deposition of the requisite amount, while adjusting Rs. 4,000/- as fine imposed by the learned trial Court, remaining amount of Rs. 31,000/- be paid to the wife of the deceased, Manna Ram by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is further directed to ensure disbursement of the amount of Rs. 31,000/- to the wife of deceased as expeditiously as possible by serving a notice to her for collecting the amount. 12. In view of above discussion, revision petition is allowed in part as indicated herein above. 13. The accused-petitioner is on bail and therefore his bail-bonds are cancelled.