Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Vinod Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 119 of 2008
Decided On : 29-4-2016
For the petitioner:Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the respondent:Mr. R.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Pankaj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that overwhelming evidence of rash and negligent driving under the influence of liquor can lead to conviction under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Rash and Negligent Driving - Criminal Revision Petition - Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act - [279, 337, 338 IPC, 185 MV Act] - The court affirmed the conviction of the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act based on overwhelming evidence that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of liquor, resulting in injuries to the victims. The court dismissed the petition and directed the accused to surrender to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act for driving in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of liquor, causing injuries to the victims. The accused challenged the judgment of conviction, arguing that there was no evidence connecting him to the crime and that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found overwhelming evidence, including witness statements and medical reports, proving that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of liquor, resulting in injuries to the victims. The court concluded that the accused was rightly convicted by the lower courts.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of liquor, leading to the injuries sustained by the victims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness statements, medical reports, and the circumstances of the incident, which proved that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of liquor, resulting in injuries to the victims.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, affirmed the conviction of the accused, and directed the accused to surrender to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Sandeep Sharma, J.
By way of present criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 23.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2004, whereby he has affirmed the judgment dated 1.3.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mandi in police challan No. 531-I/1998. The present petitioner Vinod Kumar (hereinafter referred to as accused) was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 1.3.1998, during Shivratri Festival, a cultural program was organized at Seri Manch, Mandi by the District Administration. On the same day, at around 11:00 P.M., accused Vinod Kumar while driving Maruti Car No. HP- 33-2033 came from Chauhta Bazar Mandi towards Gandhi Chowk in a very rash and negligent manner. It is further case of the prosecution that while driving, he was drunk. As per prosecution story, a speeding car being driven by the accused firstly hit PW-10 Smt Pushaplata at Gandhi Chowk and then the car struck against PW-4 Shri Ram Singh, who fell down the road. It is also case of the prosecution that after the aforesaid incident, car struck against the parked scooter (LML Vespa) and lastly, after hitting/breaking railing of the road vehicle stopped on the retaining wall with its two tyres hanging in the air. In this incident, Smt. Pushaplata and Shri Ram Singh sustained injuries and one parked Scooter got also damaged.
3. As per story of the prosecution, the incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused who was under the influence of liquor while driving the aforesaid car. It has also come on record that the Head Constable PW-15 H.C. Gandhi Ram who was discharging his duties during the cultural program organized on the eve of Shivratri Festival, had actually recorded the statements. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 1.3.1998 HC Gandhi Ram recorded the statement of Constable PW-1Shri Joginder Pal, under Section 154 Cr.PC. Shri Joginder Pal stated that he was posted as Gunman in the office of Divisional Commissioner Mandi. He stated in his statement that he had come to see the cultural program in Seri Manch, Mandi and when around 11:00 PM went for urination, one Maruti car bearing No. HP-33-2033 came at a very fast speed from the side of Chauhta Bazar Mandi towards Gandhi Chowk and hit a lady, who fell down on the road and from there, the driver of the aforementioned car drove car towards other side of the road and struck with a person and parked scooter near the pole of the electricity transformer. He further stated that after breaking the railings of the road, the vehicle stopped and its two front wheels were hanging in air while other two tyres remained on the road. On the basis of the statement of PW-1 Joginder Pal, FIR was registered against the accused at Police Station Sadar, Mand, and the matter was investigated by PW-15 HC Gandhi Ram. On completion of investigation SHO Police Station Sadar filed Challan under Section 279, 377 and 330 IPC and Section 185 of MV Act in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Mandi for trial.
4. The court of learned Judicial Magistrate Mandi taking cognizance of the matter framed charge against the accused and after appreciating the evidence on record concluded the trial and convicted the accused and sentenced him as below:
“The convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for each of the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and under Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act and in case of default in payment of fine the convict shall undergo further simple imprisonment for two months for each of the above offences for which the fine is not paid. All the sentences shall run concurrently ”
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 1.3.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, whereby
