Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2291 (RAJ)

Manohari v. State of Rajasthan

2023-12-21

SAMEER JAIN

body2023
ORDER : (Sameer Jain, J.) The instant revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 15.03.2005, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karauli in Criminal Appeal No.03/2002 whereby while setting aside the appeal, the order of conviction dated 13.12.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Criminal Case No. 452/1999 was upheld. 2. The undisputed and ineluctable facts of the instant revision, are briefly noted herein-under:- 2.1. That on 19.06.1999, the complainant-Sh. Ramkesh Meena lodged a written report at Police Station, Karauli regarding an accident stated to have occurred on 18.06.1999. 2.2. That on the basis of the said written report, the police registered a criminal case vide F.I.R. No. 376/1999 for offence under Section 304A of IPC and subsequently, proceeded with the investigation. 2.3. That the police after conclusion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. Furthermore, after filing of the said charge-sheet, the learned trial court read over the substance of the charge for the aforementioned offence to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner denied the charges and demanded to be tried. 2.4. That the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and in documentary evidence, exhibited certain documents in support of their case. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial court recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the petitioner denied the prosecution's narration, claiming it to be fabricated. It is to be noted that no defense witness was examined. 2.5. That pursuant to the conclusion of the final arguments, vide impugned judgment dated 13.12.2001, the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of the fine thereof, further imprisonment of one month was awarded. 2.6. That being aggrieved, the petitioner appealed against the judgement dated 13.12.2001 before the District and Sessions Judge, Karauli. However, vide impugned order dated 15.03.2005, the appeal so preferred was rejected and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 13.12.2001 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, was upheld. 2.7. Being further aggrieved of the orders impugned dated 15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. 3. However, vide impugned order dated 15.03.2005, the appeal so preferred was rejected and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 13.12.2001 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, was upheld. 2.7. Being further aggrieved of the orders impugned dated 15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments dated 15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001 are legally unsustainable, being contrary to the provisions of the law as well as the facts on record. In support of the said claim, learned counsel submitted that the offence under Section 304A is not made out against the petitioner beyond the realm of reasonable doubt, especially considering the several infirmities and contradictions in the statements tendered by the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the fact that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and/or on high speed. Despite the same, the learned courts below, solely on a consideration of the fact that the vehicle was being driven rashly on a high speed, have convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A. In this regard, it was contended that mere driving of a vehicle at a high speed cannot be equated with the said driving being negligent and/or rash. Therefore, by placing reliance upon the statements tendered by the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., learned counsel reiterated the claim of innocence of the petitioner and prayed for the quashing and setting aside of the orders impugned dated 15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently prayed for the dismissal of the instant revision petition, claiming the orders impugned to have been passed in consonance with the settled position of the law, after having taken into consideration the evidence on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused through the record of the instant petition. 6. It is trite law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C, the Court must bear in mind the object of the provisions of revision which is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused through the record of the instant petition. 6. It is trite law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C, the Court must bear in mind the object of the provisions of revision which is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional Jurisdiction can only be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 . 7. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 . 7. For ready reference, the operative extract of the order impugned dated 15.03.2005, necessary for discerning the challenge so raised thereto, is reproduced and noted herein-under:- ^^5- loZizFke rks fopkjd U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds vfHkHkk"kd ds bl rdZ ds lUnHkZ esa ns[kuk gS fd D;k tks xokg vfHk;kstu i{k ds }kjk ?kVuk ds p{;qn'khZ is'k fd;s x;s gSa og okLro esa p{;qn'khZ lk{kh Fks vFkok ckn esa cuk;s gq;s xokg gSaA vDr fo"k; esa ?kVuk dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih- 3 ?kVuk ds rqjUr cknh gh 19-6-1999 dks 9-25 ,-,e- ij ntZ djok nh x;h gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih-3 esa ?kVuk ds le; j?kqoj eh.kk] /kuohj eh.kk] txeksgu ljiap o Jhpj.k dh ekStwnxh ?kVuk ns[kus okyksa esa crk;h x;h gSaA mDr xokgu esa ih-M-5 xokg Jhpj.k dks gk¡ykfd vfHk;kstu i{k us i{knzksgh djkj fd;k gS] rFkkfi mlus vius c;ku esa euksgjh yky vihykFkhZ ds }kjk thi dks pyk;k tkuk vkSj mldk uEcj 5661 crk;k gSA vU; xokg ih-M-1 txeksgu] ih-M- 2 /kuohj] ih-M- 3 j?kqoj] ih-M- 4 jkeds'k vfHk;ksxh lHkh us vius c;kuksa esa ?kVuk ds le; iz'uxr thi dks vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds }kjk gh pyk;k tkuk crk;k gS rFkk lHkh us viuh lk{; esa bl rF; dks O;Dr fd;k gS fd thi dks rsth ls pykdj dYyw ds Vddj ekj nh vkSj bu lHkh us ekSds ij gh vDdj yxus ds ckn ejuk crk;k gSA vr% ftu xokgku dh ekStwnxh ?kVuk ds le; izn'kZ ih- 3 izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa crk;h x;h gS mu lHkh us ?kVuk dh iqf"V vius U;k;ky; ds le{k c;kuksa esa dh gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; us mijksDr lHkh xokgku dh lk{; dk foLr`r foospu fd;k gSA vr% fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa bu xokgku dks ckn esa cuk;s tkus okys xokg ugha dgk tk ldrk D;ksafd mijksDr xokgku dh ftjg esa Hkh ,sls dFku O;Dr ugha gq;s gSa tks fd mudh lk{; dks vfo'oluh; cukrs gksaA ih-M-7 Mk0 n'kjFk flag us vius c;ku esa dYyw iq= cq/kjke ds 'ko dk ijh{k.k djuk vkSj mlds 'kjhj ij e`R;q iwoZ dh dqUn vkys ls dkfjr 19 pksVksa dk o.kZu fd;k gS rFkk muds vuqlkj ckyd dh e`R;q vkUrfjd jDr L=ko o flj esa xEHkhj pksV o 'kkWd ds dj.k gq;h Fkh vkSj muds }kjk izn'kZ ih- 7 iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ rS;kj dh x;hA vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ih-M- 8 jkeukFk flag lk{; esa is'k gqvk ftUgksausa dYyw dk iapukek yk'k izn'kZ ih- 1 cuk;k] ?kVukLFky dk fujh{k.k dj QnZ izn'kZ ih- 2 cu;h rFkk /kkjk 133 ,e-oh- ,DV ds uksfVl esa Hkh thi pkyd euksgjh yky gh ekSds ij crk;k x;k A 6- fo}ku vfHkHk"kd vihykFkhZ dk ,d rdZ ;g Hkh jgk gS fd fdlh Hkh xokg us ;g ugha crk;k gS fd okgu dh D;k LihM FkhA mDr fo"k; esa esjs erkuqlkj tks Hkh xokg gLrxr izdj.k esa is'k gqvk gS og lHkh xzkeh.k ifjos'k ls lEcU/k j[krs gSa rFkk okgu dh LihM fdyksehVj esa D;k jgh gksxh ;g vko';d ugha gS fd dksbZ O;fDr fuf'pr :i ls crk lds ysfdu tc ckgu vR;f/kd rsth ls py jgk gks rks mls ;gh dgk tk;sxk fd okgu dkQh rsth ls py jgk Fkk rFkk tgk¡ rd okgu dks mis{kk ls o ykijokgh ls pykus dk iz'u gS bl fo"k; esa uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ ih-2 izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ,Dl Lfkku ij Vddj gksuk crk;k gS vkSj mlds fy;s Li"V :i ls uD'kk ekSdk dks ns[kus ls gh tkfgj gksrk gS fd thi pkyd us thi dks jksM lkbZM ij ykijokgh o xQyr ls pykrs gq;s dPph iVjh ij py jgs yMds dYyw ds Vddj ekjh gSA uD'kk ekSdk ls gh thi pkyd dh mis{kk o ykijokgh ls okgu dks pyk;k tkuk Li"V gks jgk gSA /kkjk 304&, Hkk0na0la0 dk tqeZ ml fLFkfr esa Hkh izekf.kr ekuk tkrk gS fd tcfr okgu dks mis{kk o ykijokgh ls pyk;k tkosA vfHk;kstu lk{; ls ;g Hkh tkfgj gqvk gS fd ekSds ij gh vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks idM fy;k x;k FkkA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; esa uD'kk ekSds dk foLr`r foospu fd;k gSA^^ 8. Upon a considered perusal of the order impugned dated 15.03.2005 as well as the order dated 13.12.2001, this Court deems it to dismiss the instant revision petition, on the following grounds read cumulatively:- 8.1. That while passing the orders impugned, the learned appellate court as well as the trial court, duly took into account the statements tendered by the eye-witnesses to the incident in question, namely Sh. Raghuveer Meena, Sh. Dhanveer Meena, Sh. Jagmohan Sarpanch and Sh. Sricharan. It is noted that the said eye-witnesses have duly recognized/identified the vehicle involved belonging to the petitioner along with identifying its driver to be the petitioner as well. 8.2. That the possibility of the eye-witnesses being planted has also been considered by the court below, and in this regard it is noted that despite the fact that Sh. Sricharan was declared hostile by the prosecution itself, he has categorically identified the vehicle to be of the petitioner's as well as the driver at the time of the incident to be, the petitioner-Manohari. 8.3. That in the statements so tendered by the eye-witnesses, the fact of the vehicle being driven at a precariously high speed whilst being rash and/or negligent has also been explicitly mentioned. Moreover, the said statements of the eye-witnesses, when subject to cross-examination during trial, remained consistent, thereby precluding the speculation qua the eye-witnesses being planted/fabricated. 8.4. That the fact that the vehicle was being driven negligently/rashly is further corroborated by the fact that as per the site map (Exhibit P-2), the accident is shown to have occurred on the unpaved track, next to the road where the pedestrians walk. 8.5. That as per the statements tendered by Dr. Dashrath Singh, who prepared the Post-Mortem Report, a total of 19 injuries were reflected on the person of the deceased-victim. The reason of death was narrated as severe internal bleeding caused by an aggravated/serious head injury and shock to the body. In this regard, reference was made to the Post-Mortem Report i.e. Exhibit P-7. 8.6. That pursuant to the commission of the offence, the Investigation officer i.e. Sh. Ramnath Singh i.e. PW-8 duly prepared the panchnama of the dead body (Exhibit P-1) and conducted the site inspection of the place of accident (Exhibit P- 2), in accordance with law. In this regard, reference was made to the Post-Mortem Report i.e. Exhibit P-7. 8.6. That pursuant to the commission of the offence, the Investigation officer i.e. Sh. Ramnath Singh i.e. PW-8 duly prepared the panchnama of the dead body (Exhibit P-1) and conducted the site inspection of the place of accident (Exhibit P- 2), in accordance with law. Thereafter, even as per the notice prepared under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the petitioner was stated to be at the site of the incident, being the driver of the jeep. 8.7. That the FIR/complaint was filed immediately after the occurrence of the accident in question i.e. 9:25am and thereafter, the driver-petitioner as well as the vehicle in question, were both recovered from the site of the accident. 9. In light of the observations made herein-above, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that the orders impugned bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. No palpable error or non-consideration of material aspects/evidence has crept in the orders dated 15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001. 10. As a result, in light of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition is dismissed. Consequently, the orders dated 15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001 are maintained. 11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.