Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.
Shri. Suren Gurung, S/o Shri. Ganga Ram Gurung - Revisionist
Versus
State of Sikkim - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 03 of 2017
Decided On : 11-04-2018
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 397 AND 401 CRPC - RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACT - CAUSA CAUSANS - ACT SECURED BY STONE OR HANDBRAKE - EVIDENCE OF INJURED WITNESS - SECTION 287, 337, 338 AND 304-A IPC - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 SECTION 2(28).
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner was driving a taxi vehicle from Rongli to Gangtok. He parked the car to attend to nature's call. Few passengers also alighted. Thereafter, the said vehicle rolled back and tumbled about 100 meters below the road at 5th Mile on Rorathang-Rangpo Road. One Bikram Rai succumbed to his injuries sustained in the accident while other occupants sustained bodily injuries, both grievous as well as simple. On receipt of the information a First Information Report (FIR) was registered and the investigation taken up. Charge-sheet was filed against the revision petitioner on finding prima facie offences made out under Section 279, 304-A, 338, 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 3, 9 III (b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The revision petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Section 287, 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. However, the revision petitioner was acquitted for offence under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Aggrieved by the judgment, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 374 (3) (a) Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, East & North Sikkim at Gangtok being Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2016. The Learned Sessions Judge vide judgment declined to interfere with the conviction and upheld the judgment and sentences impugned in the appeal. Dissatisfied by the said judgment dated 06.06.2017 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2016 the revision petitioner has preferred the present revision application under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the act of the revision petitioner cannot be held to be the proximate cause of death of one of the passengers or the injuries sustained by the other passengers. It cannot be said that the revision petitioner has done any “rash and negligent” act with the machinery so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person or that he “knowingly and negligently” omitted to take such order with the machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery that would make him culpable under Section 287 IPC. Parking a vehicle on an uphill road, the extent of its gradient or incline not being known would not drag the revision petitioner within the mischief of Section 287 IPC unless it is also proved that the revision petitioner failed to “rashly and negligently” secure the vehicle by taking proper care or made arrangement or omitted to secure the said vehicle “knowingly and negligently”. It cannot also be said that the revision petitioner caused hurt or grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so “rashly and negligently” as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others that would attract the mischief of Section 337 or 338 IPC keeping in mind the degree of rashness and negligence required to be proved in criminal prosecutions. In the facts of the present case, limiting the examination to the evidence produced, it cannot also be said that the revision petitioner had hazarded a dangerous and wanton act with “knowledge” that it is so and that it may cause death to satisfy all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.
Issues: Whether the act of the revision petitioner was the proximate cause of death of one of the passengers or the injuries sustained by the other passengers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the act of the revision petitioner cannot be held to be the proximate cause of death of one of the passengers or the injuries sustained by the other passengers. It cannot be said that the revision petitioner has done any “rash and negligent” act with the machinery so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person or that he “knowingly and negligently” omitted to take such order with the machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery that would make him culpable under Section 287 IPC. Parking a vehicle on an uphill road, the extent of its gradient or incline not being known would not drag the revision petitioner within the mischief of Section 287 IPC unless it is also proved that the revision petitioner failed to “rashly and negligently” secure the vehicle by taking proper care or made arrangement or omitted to secure the said vehicle “knowingly and negligently”. It cannot also be said that the revision petitioner caused hurt or grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so “rashly and negligently” as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others that would attract the mischief of Section 337 or 338 IPC keeping in mind the degree of rashness and negligence required to be proved in criminal prosecutions. In the facts of the present case, limiting the examination to the evidence produced, it cannot also be said that the revision petitioner had hazarded a dangerous and wanton act with “knowledge” that it is so and that it may cause death to satisfy all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition No. 03 of 2017 is allowed. The judgment of the Learned Sessions Judge dated 06.06.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2016 as well as the conviction of the Revisionist under Section 287, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC is set aside. The Revisionist is on bail. The bail bonds of the Revisionist stands cancelled. He is set at liberty forthwith.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The act of the accused must be the proximate, immediate, or efficient cause of the death or injury, without the intervention of another person's negligence (!) (!) .
The definition of "machinery" or "machine" includes devices or apparatus that perform a function, and in the context of motor vehicles, all motor vehicles are considered machines. However, not all machines are motor vehicles (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
For an offence under the relevant sections, the act must have been done so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or cause injury, and the conduct must be the immediate or effective cause of the harm (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The words "rash" and "negligent" are understood as acts done recklessly or with gross culpable neglect, respectively. The degree of negligence in criminal cases must be higher than in civil cases, requiring proof of gross negligence (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The "causa causans" or proximate cause is a crucial element, meaning the act must be the direct, immediate cause of the injury or death without intervening negligence from others (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence must establish that the act was the primary cause of the incident, and not merely a necessary or remote cause. The cause must be natural, continuous, and unbroken by other intervening causes (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish each ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The courts are limited to re-evaluating the evidence only to ensure the correctness and legality of the findings, not to reappreciate facts or evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Evidence from witnesses, especially injured witnesses, is considered reliable, and their admissions regarding the cause of the incident are binding on the prosecution unless challenged or contradicted by clear evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence must show that the accused's conduct was negligent or reckless to the extent that it was the immediate cause of the injury or death. Mere speculation or lack of direct evidence regarding specific acts like securing the vehicle (e.g., pulling the handbrake or placing stones) weakens the case for criminal negligence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
When the evidence indicates that the incident was caused by the movement of passengers inside the vehicle or other factors not directly attributable to the accused's negligence, the act cannot be considered the proximate cause (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The legal standard for criminal negligence requires proving that the act was committed with a reckless disregard for human safety, more than mere civil negligence, and that it was the direct and effective cause of the harm (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The revision of the conviction and sentences is permissible if the evidence does not sufficiently establish the accused's rash or negligent act as the proximate cause of the incident, or if the evidence is ambiguous regarding whether the accused failed to take proper precautions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court's reasoning, emphasizing the importance of establishing the direct, immediate cause of harm and the degree of negligence required for criminal liability, while also highlighting the limitations on re-evaluating evidence during revision proceedings.
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. On 15.04.2013 around 10:40 hours one taxi vehicle (Scorpio) bearing registration No. Sk.01J/1501 driven by Suren Gurung, the Revisionist herein, was on the way from Rongli to Gangtok. The Revisionist parked the car to attend to natures call. Few passengers also alighted. Thereafter, the said vehicle rolled back and tumbled about 100 meters below the road at 5th Mile on Rorathang-Rangpo Road. One Bikram Rai succumbed to his injuries sustained in the accident while other occupants sustained bodily injuries, both grievous as well as simple.
2. On 15.04.2013 on receipt of the information a First Information Report (FIR) was registered and the investigation taken up.
3. Charge-sheet No.8 dated 26.07.2013 was filed against the Revisionist on finding prima facie offences made out under Section 279, 304-A, 338, 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 3, 9 III (b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 although in the Final Form/Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. under the head “(xvi) Under Act/s & Sections: 304-A/279/336/337/IPC r/w 183/184 CMM Act, 1988.” has been endorsed.
4. On 6.05.2014 the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East & North Sikkim at Gangtok framed five substance of accusations under Section 287, 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and Section 181 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to which the Revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In the trial that commenced the Prosecution examined ten witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The examination of the Revisionist under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was conducted on 19.08.2016.
6. On 04.11.2016 the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rendered his judgment and convicted the Revisionist for offences punishable under Section 287, 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. However, the Revisionist was acquitted for offence under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
7. On 11.11.2016 the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the Revisionist to simple imprisonment of three months for offence under Section 287 IPC; a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 337 and to undergo simple imprisonment of twenty days for failure to pay the fine; a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 338 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment of twenty days for failure to pay the fine; and rigorous imprisonment of six months for offence under Section 304-A IPC and a fine of Rs.2000/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month for failure to pay the fine. All sentences were to run concurrently.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.11.2016 and sentence dated 11.11.2016 rendered by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate the Revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 374 (3) (a) Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, East & North Sikkim at Gangtok being Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2016.
9. The Learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 06.06.2017 declined to interfere with the conviction and upheld the judgment and sentences impugned in the appeal.
10. Dissatisfied by the said judgment dated 06.06.2017 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2016 the Revisionist has preferred the present revision application under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. Heard Mr. Ajay Rathi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Revisionist as well as Mr. S. K. Chettri, Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-Respondent. Both the Learned Counsels representing the respective parties led this Court extensively to the evidence on record and advanced their respective submissions. Mr. Ajay Rathi propounded that in a criminal case the burden lies on the prosecution to prove every ingredient of the offences charged and the accused is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This is a salutary principal in criminal jurisprudence and the prosecution may not need to quarrel with the defence on this point. He further submitted that the present case is a case in which the Revisionist ought to be given
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
