Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 1093
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Satya Prakash Pathak
Sufed Khan - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 445 of 1995
Decided On : 04/28/2005
Mr. B.S. Chauhan for Accused Petitioner.
Mr. Arun Sharma,
In cases of rash and negligent driving resulting in fatalities, the benefit of probation cannot be extended, as established by legal precedents.
Headnote:
Rash and Negligent Driving - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 304-A, Section 279, Section 337, Section 338 - The court discussed the evidence related to the accused's rash and negligent driving, the circumstances of the accident, and the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act. The court cited legal principles from the cases of Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for rash and negligent driving resulting in a fatal bus accident, causing deaths and injuries to several passengers. The accused claimed that the accident was due to a steering failure and sought probation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of rash and negligent driving based on witness statements and mechanical inspection reports. The court also held that the accused was not entitled to probation based on legal precedents.
Issues: The issues involved the accused's driving behavior, the cause of the accident, and the applicability of probation in cases of rash and negligent driving resulting in fatalities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on witness testimonies and mechanical inspection reports to establish the accused's rash and negligent driving. The court also cited legal principles from relevant cases to determine the inapplicability of probation in such cases.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the accused's conviction and sentence were confirmed. The accused's bail bonds were cancelled, and he was ordered to serve the sentence.
S.P. Pathak, J.-This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC against the Judgment and order dated 21.09.1995 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City in Criminal Appeal No.5/94 - Safed Khan Vs. State, whereby the Judgment and order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun, dated 21.09.1991 passed in Criminal Case No. 977/1989 (State vs. Safed Khan) has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-Under Section Sentence awarded 304-A IPC Six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.
279, 337 and 338, IPCFine of Rs.100/-under each Section and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for each default.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that Bharat Singh s/o Giriraj Gujar submitted a written report Ex.P/5 in the police Station Mahaveerji at about 9:15 PM On 25.06.1989 with the averments that he was travelling in a bus of Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation after taking ticket from Hindon and was coming to Mahaveerji along with several other passengers in the bus. The driver of the bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner at a very fast speed on the bridge over Gambhir river and due to that the bus dashed against the railing of bridge and fell down in the river at about 8:30 PM, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and many passengers died and sustained bodily injuries.
3. On this report, police registered a regular FIR (Ex. P/6) under Sections. 279, 337 and 304 of IPC and commenced investigation. On completion of usual investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindon on 26.09.1989 where charges were framed under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. Accused petitioner denied the charges framed against him and claimed trial. In support of its case, prosecution examined 46 witnesses and tendered several documents.
4. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, accused denied the prosecution story and stated that accident was the result of failure of steering and on account of which the bus was out of his control and fell in the river. No witness was examined in defence despite granting opportunity by the court.
5. The learned trial court, after hearing both sides, vide its Judgment and order of conviction dated 21.09.1991 passed in Criminal Case No. 977/89 (State vs. Sufed Khan) convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated hereinabove.
6. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and order of the learned trial court dated 21.09.1991, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, which came up for hearing before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, who vide its Judgment and order dated 21.09.1995 dismissed the appeal after confirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused petitioner. Hence, this revision petition.
7. No one put in appearance on behalf of the accused-petitioner however, after the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor were over, Mr. B.S. Chauhan learned counsel for accused petitioner appeared and was heard. I also carefully gone through the material available on record.
8. It was contended by learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the accident had taken place without there being any fault of the petitioner as there was sudden failure of brakes and it was not possible for him to control the bus in those circumstances, therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. He also contended that in the absence of reliable evidence regarding rash and negligent driving, the accused was not liable to be convicted and sentenced. The learned counsel submitted that in case t
