IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.
Shiv Kumar Nishad, S/o. Kanwal Ram Nishad - Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station : Devari, District : Durg (C.G.) - Respondent
CRR No. 537 of 2012
Decided On : 19-06-2024
JUDGMENT : Revision - Criminal Law - IPC Section 304-A, Motor Vehicles Act Section 3/181 and 146/196 - The court upheld the conviction of the applicant under Section 304-A of IPC and Sections 3/181 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court found that the applicant was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, causing the accident resulting in the death of the victim. The court also rejected the applicant's plea to reduce the sentence based on legal principles emphasizing the need for strict punishment for offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was convicted under Section 304-A of IPC and Sections 3/181 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act for causing a fatal accident while driving a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the applicant guilty based on the evidence provided by eyewitnesses and medical evidence, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and appellate court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, causing the accident resulting in the death of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence provided by eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and the contents of the FIR, affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to surrender before the concerned trial court for serving the remaining jail sentence.
JUDGMENT :
Heard.
1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2011 upholding the conviction of the applicant under Section 304-A of IPC, under Section 3/181 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentence of RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 200/- plus usual default, fine of Rs. 300 and Rs. 500 respectively, as passed by the JMFC, Dondilohara (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 249/2009 vide its judgment dated 16.03.2010.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.08.2008, at about 02:30 pm, deceased Rainlal was going towards village, at that time, the present applicant/Driver of LML Freedom motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 12 B 1068 by driving the same, rashly and negligently dashed the deceased Rainlal, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his head. He was immediately admitted to the District Hospital Rajnandgaon, but he succumbed to death during the course of his treatment. The incident was witnessed by Roomlal (PW-1), Jhaggarsingh Dewangan (PW-2) and Ashok Kumar (PW-3). Merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P/2. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. V.P. Maheshwar (PW-6). Thereafter, F.I.R. under Section 304-A of IPC was lodged against the applicant/accused vide Ex.P/8 and the applicant/accused was arrested.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 304-A of IPC was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondilohara, District: Durg (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded not guilty while claiming trial.
4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant under Section 304-A and sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine amount, 1 month additional RI, and under Section 3/181 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act with penalty of Rs. 300 and Rs. 500 respectively, vide its judgment dated 16.03.2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 249/2009. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.07.2012, has upheld the conviction and sentence of the applicant as mentioned in Para 1. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the vehicle of the applicant turned turtle due to the pit and breaker which were present on the road at the place of accident. Alternatively, he further submits that the incident is of the year 2008, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2008, i.e. for more than 15 years and the applicant remained in jail for more than 2 months, therefore, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision, while submitting that the appellate Court has not committed any infirmity in upholding the conviction and order of sentence of the applicant warranting no interference by this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.
8. Before the Courts below, as many as 8 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Roomlal (PW-1), Jhaggarsingh Dewangan (PW-2) and Ashok Kumar (PW-3) are the eye-witnesses to the incident. PW-1 Roomlal has categorically stated in his Court statement that on the date of incident, his father was coming from home after having food, at that time, the applicant/accused who was the driver of the vehicle LML Freedom, by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed his father, as a result of which, his father fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his head
State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi
State of Arunachal Pradesh vs Ramchandra Rabidas Alias Ratan Rabidas and another : (2019) 10 SCC 75
Rash and negligent driving resulting in death constitutes offences under IPC, affirming convictions and allowing sentence reduction based on mitigating circumstances.
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's driving was rash or negligent to uphold a conviction under Section 304(A) IPC.
Negligence under S.304A IPC requires proof; if evidence shows absence of recklessness, conviction cannot stand.
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death but reduced the sentence from six months to three months based on mitigating circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the degree of negligence and rashness to establish offences under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing t....
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while reducing the sentence to one year based on mitigating circumstances.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.