IMPORTANT POINT
The court balanced corrective and deterrence theories in sentencing, considering mitigating circumstances and the nature of the offense.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner-accused has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, challenging the order dated 16.01.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.1/2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, Kota, dismissing his appeal and affirming the judgment dated 04.02.2003 in case No.164/1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramganjmandi, Kota whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(a) Sections 279 IPC- Six months simple imprisonment, fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment

(b) Section 304-A IPC- Two year simple imprisonment, fine of Rs.100/-, in default to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated, an accident occurred on 15.05.1996 when one Kalusingh, a labourer at M/s Mangalam Cement Factory, was removing stones from the road in the morning at about 9:00 AM, he was hit by a dumper truck (bearing No.RJ-20-G-1882) coming reverse and being driven by petitioner. In this accident Mr. Kalusingh got multiple injuries on different parts of his body and on the basis of his ‘Parcha Bayan’, FIR No.76/1996 came to be registered for offences under Sections 279, 337 IPC. Mr. Kalusingh stated in his ‘Parcha Bayan’ that the driver of dumper truck moved the dumper towards back side, rashly and negligently, and hit him. During course of medical treatment, Mr. Kalusingh succumbed to his injuries, hence, offence under Sections 304-A IPC was added.

3. After investigation in the FIR, charge-sheet was filed and charge was framed. The petitioner claimed no guilt of offences, hence trial commenced. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, held that the petitioner drove the dumper truck towards backside without blowing horn in negligent manner and without noticing the presence of deceased who was working on the road. It was observed that the deceased Kalusingh died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident with the dumper truck and finally, vide judgment dated 04.02.2003, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in the manner indicated hereinabove.

4. Criminal appeal filed by petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.02.2003 remained unsuccessful and appellate Court affirmed the conviction as well as sentence of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 16.01.2004.

5. There is a concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner in respect of proving his guilt to drive the dumper truck rashly and negligently due to which accident occurred and Mr. Kalusingh sustained injuries and later on, succumbed to his injuries. In respect of concurrent findings of fact, the legal position is well settled that unless a case is make out pointing out a patent error or error of jurisdiction or law, the fact findings is not liable to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Further, it is also impermissible to re-appreciate the entire evidence afresh, just to draw an another conclusion than drawn by two courts. To fortify such proposition of law, reference of following two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Manju Ram Kalita Vs. State of Assam [(2009) 13 SCC 330] and Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. The State of Chattisgarh [(2022) 8 SCC 204] would be suffice.

6. Counsel for the petitioner argued the revision petition on merits but could not point out any such patent error/ defect in fact findings or an error of jurisdiction or law which warrant interference with the finding recorded by the trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate Court, by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. Hence, as far as finding of holding the guilt of petitioner to drive the dumper truck rashly, negligently and without taking necessary cautions, are hereby affirmed and conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is sustained