The court emphasized that rash and negligent driving resulting in death warrants strict punishment to reflect the crime's severity and societal interest.

ORDER :

Praveer Bhatnagar, J.

1. The present criminal revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 02.08.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Appeal No.7/2005 (Old No.4/2005) whereby, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Regular Criminal Case No.349/1998 whereby, the accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2005 and 02.08.2005 passed by the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper. The learned Courts below, without properly appreciating the evidence of PW-2 Jagar Ali and PW-3 Sunil Sharma (who was declared hostile), convicted the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. He further contends that there is no positive evidence against the accused-petitioner that accused-petitioner was driving the questioned vehicle rashly or negligently. Merely on the statement of witnesses that accused-petitioner was driving the vehicle speedily, it cannot be said that accused-petitioner was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.01.2005 and 02.08.2005 may be quashed and set aside and the accused-petitioner may be acquitted from the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner relies upon the judgment passed in “Annapoorna Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.8828 of 2019) decided on February 3, 2020”.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in alternative prays that sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner may be substituted with the period already undergone by him and he may be released. He places reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Paul George Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2008) 4 SCC 185

(ii) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1332/2003, Ramchandra Vs. State of Rajasthan

(iii) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.525 and 526/2008, Mehboob Khan Vs. State

(iv) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.109/2004, Taranjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan.

(v) Bhalachandra Waman Pathe Vs. The State of Maharashtra 1967 SCC OnLine SC 26 : 1968 ACJ 38 : 1968 Mah LJ 423

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supports the judgment passed by the Courts below and opposes reduction in sentence. He places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur in Criminal Appeal No.844 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl) No.2984 of 2018”.

6. Before dealing with the revision petition, it is desirable to point out the factual matrix of the case, which are as under:-

6.1. That on 12.09.1998, PW-2 Jafar Ali submitted written report (Exhibit P-2) before the Police Station, Jhunjhunu stating the fact that her niece Shabana @ Feroza aged 10 years was going from home to agriculture field at 11:00 am in the morning and when she reached near to the field then suddenly a roadways bus bearing registration No.R14P1015 came from Peepli Chowk and the driver was driving the vehicle negligently and speedily. In the report, it is also stated that her niece Shabana @ Feroza was standing on the strip of land beside the road. The driver of the said vehicle hit her niece Shabana @Feroza resulting in her death. It is also stated in the report (Exhibit P-2) that at the time of incident, PW-3 Sunil Sharma and one Mohd. Sarif Ansar was also present and they have seen the incident. On receipt of the above report, FIR No.187/1998 was registered at Police Station, Sadar Jhunjhunu with the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.

6.2 After investigation, police filed challan ag