Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 691 (RAJ)

Rajveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-26

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

body2024
ORDER : Praveer Bhatnagar, J. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1999 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.09.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.44/05 whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction dated 17.07.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alwar in Criminal Case No.306/99, whereby the revisionist-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 304A IPC One year simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 279 IPC One month simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.08.1999, complainant Bhanwar Lal submitted the written report at Police Station Mahalkera stating that on 05.09.1999 in morning at around 8-8:30 AM, grandson of complainant Netram and son of his daughter Haroo were going for natural call to the fields. At a distance, the driver of a minu bus bearing registration No.RJ-02-P-0455 who was coming from Alwar side, driving the bus rashly and negligently and hit Netram and Haroo resultantly, Haroo died at the spot and Netram sustained injuries on his head and body who was also died in the hospital during his treatment. On the basis of written report, the police registered the case under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. 4. The trial Court framed charges but the petitioner denied charges and claimed to be tried. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed an order of sentence and conviction dated 17.07.2002. 5. Aggrieved from the order dated 17.07.2002, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner vide order dated 20.09.2005. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below erred in passing the order. He submits that the appellate Court did not consider the record, which includes statements of the witnesses and material available on record. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below erred in passing the order. He submits that the appellate Court did not consider the record, which includes statements of the witnesses and material available on record. Learned counsel submits that the appellate Court ought to have considered the evidence before arriving at any conclusion. 7. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below failed to consider the aspect that the prosecution could not prove rashness and negligent driving on the part of the accused-petitioner before convicting the petitioner under Section 304- A. Learned counsel submits that prosecution in order to substantiate its case got examined eight witnesses apart from exhibiting 09 documents. He further submits that in the statements of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and any complicity in the crime. The learned trial Court vide order dated 17.07.2002 without properly appreciating the material and evidence obtaining on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner. The learned Courts below while passing the impugned orders did not consider the fact that no independent witness was examined. All the witnesses who were examined were interested witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that as per the FIR, there is no eye-witness of the incident. As per the version of the FIR, the complainant has just mentioned in it that named persons gave him the particulars about the vehicle which met with an accident. There is no corroborating evidence available on record with regard to preparation of site plan and other documents due to non-production of the IO before the learned trial Court. Due to this lacuna, benefit may have been given to the petitioner because the prosecution story as well as the documents exhibited have no supporting evidence. 8. Learned counsel further submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging the report with the police. The delay has not been explained by the prosecution and this delay clear create doubts upon the prosecution story and involvement of the petitioner and his vehicle in the accident. The basic ingredients for the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced are also not available on record. The petitioner was not driving the vehicle with rash and negligence because the incident took place due to the negligence of deceased persons. 9. The basic ingredients for the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced are also not available on record. The petitioner was not driving the vehicle with rash and negligence because the incident took place due to the negligence of deceased persons. 9. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the orders dated 17.07.2002 and 20.09.2005 may be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and invoked when decisions are inaccurate, there is no conformity with the legal provisions, the judgment recorded is based on the improper appreciation of evidence, substantial evidence is omitted, or judicial power is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. In light of the above settled legal positions, this court has to see whether the finding arrived at courts below suffers from an improper appreciation of evidence. 13. In the instant case, the courts below, after analysing the statements of Eyewitnesses PW-2 Sitaram and PW-5 Sunderlal, concluded that the accused petitioner was driving the questioned vehicle; the witnesses identified the accused petitioner in court. On analysing the statement of PW-8, Sunil courts below held that the accused petitioner was driving the erring vehicle. 14. The courts below also concurred that the accident occurred due to negligent and rash driving of the questioned vehicle. The courts below appreciated the statements of PW-2 Sitaram, PW-3 Gangaram, and PW-5 Sunderlal, coupled with the site plan Ex-P4, concurred that the Driver of the erring vehicle after departing the concrete road hit the deceased Haru and Prabhu Dayal, at the dirt track. The appellate court also took into consideration the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased Haru and Netram. It affirmed the accused petitioner's guilt under sections 279 and 304A of the Indian penal code. 15. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to understand what constitutes a rash and negligent act regarding the legally settled position. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72 defined "rash and negligent driving" and held that: "A rash act is primarily an over-hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72 defined "rash and negligent driving" and held that: "A rash act is primarily an over-hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still, a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act recklessly and with indifference to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution, guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the Driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and caution." 16. In the instant matter, the statements of eyewitnesses PW-2 Sitaram, PW-3 Gangaram and PW-5 Sunderlal unequivocally demonstrate that the accused petitioner drove the erring vehicle speedily and smashed the young lads, resulting in their sad demise. The site plan Ex-P4 shows that the accused petitioner could not control the erring Mini Bus and hit the boys on the dirt strip after leaving the main road. The presence of eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence is also undisputed, as their names are mentioned in the FIR instituted by PW-1 Bhanwar Lal. PW-1 Bhanwar Lal is the Grandfather of the deceased Haru and Netram. The witnesses identified the accused petitioner before the trial court. Further, the vehicle owner examined as PW-8 Sunil corroborates eyewitness statements indicating vehicle possession with the petitioner. 17. Further, Ex-P3, the death memo of the deceased Haru was prepared just after the incident at the place of occurrence, states that PW-5 Sunderlal reported at 8.35 am at the police station that the Driver of the questioned Mini Bus bearing number No.RJ-02-P-0455 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, causing the death of the deceased Haru at the spot and other injured Netram been taken to the Hospital. It's also pertinent to pinpoint that the mini Bus, after running over the deceased Haru, further ran over the other deceased Netram, who later succumbed to injuries. The injuries caused to the deceased Harun further fortify the prosecution story that the accused petitioner drove the vehicle negligently. The postmortem report of the deceased Haru shows that he sustained a lacerated wound at his head, fracturing the parietal and occipital bones. The injuries caused to the deceased Harun further fortify the prosecution story that the accused petitioner drove the vehicle negligently. The postmortem report of the deceased Haru shows that he sustained a lacerated wound at his head, fracturing the parietal and occipital bones. Similarly, deceased Netram also suffered injuries on his head; his post-mortem report indicates fracturing of occipital and parietal bones with lacerated wounds. Thus, it is evident from the prosecution evidence that the tyres of the questioned vehicle went over both the deceased, crushing their heads and causing fatal injuries. 18. The above facts ascertain that the accused drove the Bus speedily and did not exercise due caution and proper care. Such an act falls in the ambit of carelessness. 19. The courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence presented by the prosecution and defence. They correctly concluded the accused petitioner's guilt under sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 20. I do not find any perversity in the findings arrived at by the courts below. 21. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in alternative prays that accused-petitioner has now attained the age of 55 years and occurrence relates back to 1999 and the accused-petitioner has already served the sentence of about one months five days out of maximum sentence of one year S.I. awarded to him. Therefore, sentence awarded to accused-petitioner may be reduced to period already undergone by him. 22. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner places his reliance upon the judgments passed in Mahipal v. State of Rajasthan: 2016 SCC Online Raj 277, Dilip Singh v. State: 2015 SCC Online Raj 9919 & Bhanwara Ram v. State of Rajasthan: 2020(3) RLW 2348 (Raj.) 23. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposes the prayer to reduce the sentence of accused-petitioner as already undergone. He fervently submits that due to the rash and negligent act of the accused-petitioner, deceased succumbed to death. Therefore, no leverage may be given to the accused-petitioner. 24. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposes the prayer to reduce the sentence of accused-petitioner as already undergone. He fervently submits that due to the rash and negligent act of the accused-petitioner, deceased succumbed to death. Therefore, no leverage may be given to the accused-petitioner. 24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur rendered in Criminal Appeal No.844/2023 SLP (Criminal) No.2984 of 2018 dated 28.03.2023 after referring the judgments of State of M.P. v. Bablu 2014 (9) SCC 281 held as under:- "the prime objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is necessary with the gravity nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is therefore, the solemn duty of the Court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as awarding the lesser sentence encourages any criminal and as a result of the same, the society suffers." (Emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur set aside the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby, Hon'ble High Court upheld the conviction of respondent under Section 304A of the IPC. However, has reduced the sentence from two years to eight months, subject to prior deposit of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation to be paid to family/legal heirs of the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above matter, restored the sentence of two years and fine imposed by the trial Courts below. 25. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the view that sentence awarded to accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC commensurate with the offence committed and there is no cogent reasons for the Court to reduce the sentence of the accused-petitioner. 26. In view of the above, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. The accused-petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties are forfeited. He is directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of his sentences. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith.