Back
2013 Supreme(Raj) 64
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE BANWARI LAL SHARMA, J.
Babu Lal
Versus
State of Rajasthan
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 183 of 1995, decided on 13.02.2013
Rameshwar Dave, for Petitioner;
Chandralekha, Public Prosecutor, for State
Headnote:(a) Penal Code, Sec. 279/304-A read with Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, Rule 6(a) & (d) — Causing death/injury by driving motor vehicle in violation of Regulation 6(a) & (d) amounts to rash and negligent act of the driver — Accident caused while overtaking the truck — Held — Death caused by the petitioner while driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner — Concurs with the finding of Special Judge.
(Paras 20 to 23)
¼d½ n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 279@304-d lifBr lM+d fofu;e ds fu;e] 1989] fu;e] 6¼d½ o ¼?k½ & fofu;e 6¼d½ o ¼?k½ ds mYya?ku esa eksVj ;ku pykdj e`R;q@ {kfr dkfjr djuk pkyd ds mrkoysiu ,oa ykijokgh ds d`R; dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS & Vªd dks vkWojVsd djrs le; nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & thi ds mrkoysiu ,oa ykijokgh ls pykrs le; izkFkhZ }kjk e`R;q dkfjr dh xbZ & fof'k"B U;k;k/kh'k ds fu"d"kZ ls lger gSA ¼in la[;k 20 ls 23½
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 166 read with Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 357(3) — Grant of Compensation — In case of conviction u/Sec. 304-A — Held — Gant of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a different sphere —Grant of compensation u/Sec. 357(3) Cr.P.C. with a direction that the same should be paid to the affected person for which the accused has been sentenced has a different contour and the same should not be regarded as a substitute in all circumstances for adequate sentenced. (Para 29)
Revision dismissed.
¼[k½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 166 lifBr n-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 357¼3½ & izfrdj iznku djuk & /kkjk 304-d ds rgr nks"kflf) ds ekeys esa & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e 1988 ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr izfrdj iznku djuk ,d fHkUu vf/kdkj {ks= esa gS & bl funsZ'k ds lkFk na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 357¼3½ ds rgr izfrdj iznku djuk fd izHkkfor O;fDr;ksa dks bldk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk pkfg;s] ftlds fy, vfHk;qDr dks nf.Mr fd;k x;k gS] og ,d fHkUu vFkZ j[krk gS vr% mls i;kZIr ltk gsrq lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,d izfrLFkkiu ds :i esa ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg;sA ¼in la[;k 29½
iqujh{k.k [kkfjt dhA
2. Briefly, as set up the prosecution case is that on 5.6.1992, a written report was submitted by Ashok Kumar PW.1 to S.H.O., P.S. Bilara stating that he (Ashok Kumar, Land Record Inspector) along with Jai Ram Patel, Krishna Ram, Kishanlal, Jawaharlal, and Shyamlal Suthar went to Barni Khurd from Bilara by Jeep No. RRT 6082. The driver of the jeep was Babulal Meghwal and when they were returning from Barni Khurd via Pipar City, another driver was boarded in the jeep and started to drive it. His name was best known to Babulal. The complainant was not aware of his name. He identified him only by face, who was driving the jeep from Pipar. When they arrived at the farm of Kaluramji, which is before check-post, a truck was going in-front-of the jeep, the driver of the jeep tried to over-take the truck in rash and negligent manner and hit the moped No. RNL 4907, which was coming from front side. The moped driver died on the spot and the pillion rider got serious injured. The accident took place in the evening at 8.00 pm.
3. On the basis of the above report Ex.P/2, formal FIR No. 135/92 was registered at P.S. Bilara (Jodhpur) for committing offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A IPC. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304 A IPC and 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bilara (Jodhpur) on 13.7.1992.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the petitioner. After examining the petitioner (who was accused in the case), examined himself and one person as witnesses in defence. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the prosecution version and stated that the facts narrated by the witnesses of prosecution are wrong and further stated that he is not responsible for rash and negligent act, rather the moped driver himself was responsible for rash and negligent driving and he himself fell down in the jeep.
5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and the material available on the record, the petitioner-accused was found guilty for causing death of Mohanlal and Babulal due to rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing No. RRT 6082 and he was sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment; for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment; and for the offence punishable under Sections 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he was sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof to undergo is days' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently but the default sentence was ordered to run separately.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.5.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur vide which the appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Bilara (Jodhpur) was dismissed, this revision petition has been filed praying for setting aside the judgment and order of sentence dated 15.2.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bilara (Jodhpur) and the jud
