Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1582 (RAJ)

Maqsood Khan S/o Bhure Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-23

RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

body2023
ORDER 1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-accused challenging the order dated 11.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1999, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.10.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Badi Sadri camp at Mandafia, District Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case No. 200 of 1991 has been upheld. 2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 279 IPC A fine of Rs. 300/- with default clause Section 337 IPC A fine of Rs. 200/- with default clause Section 338 IPC A fine of Rs. 500/- with default clause Section 304-A IPC Three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300 with default clause All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the petitioner is that above mentioned criminal case was started on basis of a complaint submitted by one Prithvi Raj Dangi (PW-5) stating therein that on 20.05.1991, he along with Ashok Kumar Bhatt, Manohar Singh Mehta and Pritam Dutt boarded a bus No. RRY-8229 to go to Chittorgarh on duty for Lok Sabha elections. They were approximately 20-25 teachers. He was sitting on the roof of bus as there was no space inside the bus. There were lot of passengers even on the roof of the bus. The driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Overhead wires were crossing the route which touched them because driver failed to notice low-hanging wires. Pritam Dutt fell down and suffered a fatal head injury after wire touched his head. Complainant, Ashok Kumar and Manohar Singh also sustained injuries. The incident occurred due to the petitioner's rash and negligent driving. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, case was investigated and after investigation into matter, a charge-sheet for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the petitioner. 5. Substance of accusation under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC was read over and explained to the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The Trial Court, after completion of trial, convicted the petitioner and imposed aforementioned sentences. 5. Substance of accusation under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC was read over and explained to the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The Trial Court, after completion of trial, convicted the petitioner and imposed aforementioned sentences. The appeal of the petitioner to Appellate Court was also dismissed, upholding conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with said order of the learned Appellate Court, instant revision petition has been preferred by the accused. 7. Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated prosecution evidence in light of checks available on record; that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner, in any way, was acting rashly or negligently; that deceased Pritam Dutt was riding on roof of the bus, therefore, it cannot be said that his death was a result of rash and negligent act of the petitioner. It is further argued that as per deposition of Prithivi Raj Dangi (PW-5), conductor asked them to sit on the roof of bus because it was full. In view of this, it cannot be said that the petitioner was responsible for injury to the persons sitting on the roof of the bus. Moreover, the deceased was struck by an over head wire due to which he fell down and sustained fatal injuries, therefore, no question of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver could arise. 8. It is further argued that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate evidence in proper perspective and have wrongly recorded conviction hence, he prayed to set aside judgment of conviction and sentences imposed by the Courts below. Lastly, it is prayed that in view of the legal infirmities in judgments of the Trial Court as also the Appellate Court, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted, he submitted. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the learned Trial Court has rightly found the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC and same was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 10. I have heard the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the orders impugned as well as record of the case. 11. 10. I have heard the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the orders impugned as well as record of the case. 11. Now, point for consideration before this Court is whether judgment of the Appellate Court in affirming judgment of the Trial Court in convicting and sentencing the petitioner is correct, legal and proper or need to be set aside. 12. The power under revision is conferred on the High Court is to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by the Courts below. It is well settled that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and Court cannot re-appreciate evidence afresh as if sitting in appeal unless evidence is found perverse and unreasonable. The finding of facts recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless such findings are perverse or based on no evidence or suffered from any error of law. 13. In the light of aforesaid settled principles with regard to scope of revision, when judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are analyzed, it is found that very basis of prosecution case is that the driver was driving involved bus in a rash and negligent manner and as such, the accident took place. 14. It is admitted position that the deceased Pritam Dutt at relevant time was travelling on the roof of the bus and while doing so, he was hit on his head by over head wires and as a result of that, he sustained injuries and ultimately died. In view of above manner of accident so occurred, act of the petitioner cannot be said to be rash and negligent because the deceased was himself responsible as he was sitting at a non-designated place of bus and that rash and negligent act of deceased himself was the cause of his death. 15. Prithvi Raj Dangi (PW-5), Manohar Singh (PW-6), Magan Lal (PW-7) and Ashok (PW-8) have deposed that it was the conductor, who suggested the deceased and other passengers to travel on roof of the bus. Even if it is accepted that the conductor made such a proposal, it still cannot be considered that case against the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC is proved. The driver of bus involved cannot be held criminally liable for alleged actions of the conductor. Even if it is accepted that the conductor made such a proposal, it still cannot be considered that case against the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC is proved. The driver of bus involved cannot be held criminally liable for alleged actions of the conductor. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be responsible for accident in question. The deceased was not acting in a prescribed manner whilst sitting on roof of the bus and was himself responsible for rashness and negligence since that was not a place where the passengers are permitted to sit. 16. In my considered opinion, the deceased died due to his own rash and negligent act. He had no business to climb on roof of bus which the petitioner was driving. It is also relevant to note that out of a large number of the passengers who had climbed on roof of the bus only one, the deceased died. 17. At best, it can give rise to a civil responsibility. The Court cannot shut its eyes to fact that the deceased Pritam Dutt himself solely contributed to alleged crime, if any, by voluntarily travelling on roof of the bus. 18. Having considered these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that act of the deceased itself was an act of rashness and negligence and the petitioner cannot be said to be responsible for that. 19. In view of this, conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. As such, I think that it is a fit case wherein this Court should interfere into impugned orders as passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. 20. Accordingly, instant criminal revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the IPC are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of said charges. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand discharged. 21. Revision allowed.