The court emphasized the importance of proportional punishment in criminal law, affirming that the severity of the sentence must reflect the gravity of the offense committed.

ORDER :

Praveer Bhatnagar, J.

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1990 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.08.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chabra, District Baran in Criminal Appeal No.7/2000, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction dated 03.08.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Atru, District Baran in Sessions Case No.80/90, whereby the revisionist- petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.1990, the complainant - Birdhi Lal submitted written report in the police station Kawai, District Baran stating that on 18.05.1990, he along with 25-30 people of his village, went to attend the marriage ceremony of one Ram Pratap's daughter. He took Matador No.RPF 5222 of Vinod Kumar Mittal on rent and Viond Kumar Mittal was driving the Matador. When they returning from the programme to their village Phoolbardoa then near Salpura Railway Station, the petitioner - Vinod Kumar was driving the vehicle in high speed. It is also stated that at 10.00 PM due to high speed of vehicle, Matador overturned and the passengers, sitting in the Matador received injuries along with him. On the basis of written report, the police registered the case under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. However, after the incident, three persons, namely, Mangi Bai, Pana Bai and Reena died, thus Section 304A IPC was added.

4. The trial Court framed charges but the petitioner denied charges and claimed to be tried. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed an order of sentence and conviction dated 03.08.1999.

5. Aggrieved from the order dated 03.08.1999, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner vide order dated 17.08.2005. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below erred in passing the order. He submits that the appellate Court did not consider the record, which includes statements of the witnesses and material available on record. Learned counsel submits that the appellate Court ought to have considered the evidence before arriving at any conclusion.

7. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below failed to consider the aspect that the prosecution could not prove rashness and negligent driving on the part of the accused-petitioner before convicting the petitioner under Section 304-A. Learned counsel submits that there was no evidence that the petitioner was driving rashly or negligently. He further submits that the Courts below failed to consider the fact that the due to damage in the tyre, the vehicle accidentally overturned without rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. He submits that the trial Court did not properly examine the statements of PW – 6 Roop Singh, who has not been declared hostile. PW – 6 Roop Singh, in his statements, stated that the petitioner – Vinod Kumar was not driving the vehicle and one ‘Harijan’ was driving the vehicle and he does not know his name. PW – 7 Ganesh Ram and PW – 10 Ram Dayal has also admitted that one ‘Harijan’ was driving the vehicle, however, PW – 10 Ram Dayal was turned hostile.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the Courts