SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1802

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mehesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Lakhan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 852 of 2008.
Decided On : 14-09-2015

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Jitendra Singh, Advocate.
For the State: Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP.

A driver is liable for the death and injuries caused to passengers due to his negligence in driving the vehicle.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - ROAD ACCIDENT - NEGLIGENCE - DRIVER - DEATH OF 35 PERSONS - INJURY TO 19 PERSONS - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - CONFIRMATION - REVISION PETITION - DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a driver, was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for causing the death of 35 persons and injuries to 19 persons in a road accident due to his negligence. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court and the appellate court had rightly assessed the evidence submitted by the prosecution. The court also found that the petitioner was negligent in driving the vehicle, which resulted in the accident and the death and injuries of the victims.

Issues: 1. Whether the trial court and the appellate court erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for causing the death of 35 persons and injuries to 19 persons in a road accident due to his negligence. 2. Whether the petitioner was negligent in driving the vehicle, which resulted in the accident and the death and injuries of the victims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court and the appellate court had rightly assessed the evidence submitted by the prosecution. The court also held that the petitioner was negligent in driving the vehicle, which resulted in the accident and the death and injuries of the victims. The court relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which established that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, and that there were more than 60 passengers in the vehicle at the time of the accident, which was in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and the appellate court.

JUDGMENT

1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgement/order dated 25.7.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi in Cr. Appeal No. 15/2007, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the judgement/order dated 25.10.2007 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa, District Bundi in Cr. Case No. 373/1996, by which he convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as under:Under Section 279 Indian Penal Code: To undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' SI Under Section 337 Indian Penal Code: To undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' SI Under Section 304A Indian Penal Code: To undergo 2 years' SI with a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's SI Under Section 184 of MV Act: To undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' SI.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

"Complainant PW-2 Abdul Hakeem lodged a written report Ex.-P/1 at Police Station, Nainwa, District Bundi regarding an incident alleged to have taken place on 13.11.1996. On the basis of the said report, the police registered FIR No. 404/1996 for the offence under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 IPC end investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 304A Indian Penal Code in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa, District Bundi, who took cognisance of the offences. Thereafter the charges were read over to the accused petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A Indian Penal Code and Sections 66/192, 123/192 and 184 of MV Act. The accused petitioner denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got recorded their statements. Thereafter the statement of the accused person was recorded. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court, vide judgement/order dated 25.10.2007 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner, as indicated above.

3. Against the said judgement the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate court. The Appellate Court i.e. Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi, vide judgement/order dated 25.7.2008 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement/order passed by the trial court.

4. Hence, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the courts below while passing the judgement/orders dated 25.7.2008 and 25.10.2007 have not considered the facts in accordance with law. He has further contended that from the evidence that came on record and produced by the prosecution during trial, the alleged offence is not made out against the petitioner. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. He has further contended that there are serious contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and even in spite of the contradictions and omissions, the trial court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner and which has wrongly been confirmed by the appellate court. He has further contended that the accident had not occurred on account of the negligence of the petitioner, who was a driver, but it had occurred on account of mechanical defect in the vehicle and due to this reason he could not have the control over the vehicle. He has further contended that before falling in the river, there was some loud sound and same was due to breaking of the Spendal. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held liable for this accident. He has also drawn the attention of this Court on the mechanical report and requested that in this view of the matter, the judgements/o





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top