Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Munshi Singh – Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1961 of 2016
Decided On : 22-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : Anil Kumar Srivastava
For The Respondent: G.A.

Point of law: Order of conviction - Gratuitous passengers - Vehicle was ferrying passengers for hire, inviting them to board his vehicle – While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. The persons driving motor vehicles cannot and should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court

Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 39 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 337, 304, 279 – Order of Conviction – Revision .
Finding of the court:
Act of the revisionist in fabricating or causing to be fabricated a contraption of a motor vehicle, and moving out on the road, was an inherently rash act, unless that vehicle was certified to be according to safety norms by an authorized government agency and then registered under Section 39 of the Act of 1988. – This vehicle, in whatever manner, if the cause of death of any person, regardless of the fact whether the victim was a gratuitous passenger, a family member, or a third party, would render the revisionist liable for an offence of death by negligence. – There are further findings that the contraption was indeed driven negligently at high speed, resulting in an accident, leading to the victim's death. – In the face of these facts and the position of law, the charge of causing death by negligence is well established against the revisionist. So far as the evidence under Section 279 IPC is concerned, that, on evidence too, is proven beyond doubt. – There is no scope for interference with the findings of the two courts below, who are ad idem about the revisionist's guilt. – It is not a case where anything was intentioned by the revisionist. – He was himself the driver of the vehicle and what happened was a pure accident. Looking to the nature of the vehicle that the revisionist employed to venture out on the roads, and the evidence about negligence forthcoming against him, this Court does not think that the revisionist is entitled to leniency in the matter of sentence. – Accident on roads that are caused by rashness or negligence are a specie of pernicious conduct that has devastating consequences for not only for the victim, but the entire family. – It is an offence which impacts the society by rendering women destitute, children orphans and old parents staring at the darkness of a lost progeny, just on the rush of adrenaline capturing the man, who manouvers the steering of a motor vehicle and presses the accelerator. – Here, the case is worse, because the vehicle involved is one that ought never to have been fabricated, much less driven in a public place. – Court has found above, there is no good ground to interfere with the orders impugned.
Result: Revision Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

1. This revision is directed against a judgment and order of Mr. Vivek, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Agra dated 07.06.2016, partly allowing Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2013, and modifying the revisionist's conviction and sentences awarded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Agra, vide judgment and order dated 02.07.2013 in Criminal Case No. 572 of 2010, State v. Munshi Singh, acquitting him of the charge under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short “IPC”) but upholding his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P.N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Nitin Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

3. The prosecution case, set out in the First Information Report, (for short “FIR”) is that on 08.06.2001, the informant, Tunda Ram, along with his son Mukesh, besides Pratap Singh, son of Sohran Singh, a native of Village -Nagla Veer Bhan, Police Station -Jagner, and another Gopi Chand, son of Bhanwar Singh, a resident of Singaich, Police Station -Jagner, District Agra, was on way to his Village -Gopalpura. He was waiting for a conveyance at Saraindhi Chauraha. The party could not find a vehicle to undertake the journey. In consequence, they boarded a “Jugar” (an unauthorised and illegal contraption of a powered vehicle) that was headed towards Sahpau. This vehicle of sorts, stated to be driven at a high speed and negligently, overturned near the Siddh Baba Mandir, at about 12 noon. In consequence of this accident, the informant's son, Mukesh, a boy of 23 years, died on the spot. The other passengers on board the contraption also sustained injuries.

4. It was mentioned in the FIR that the informant had come to report the incident at the station, after informing his relatives. It was also stated that he could identify the driver, if confronted. Based on the aforesaid written information, Crime No. 103 of 2001, under Sections 279, 337, 304 IPC was registered at Police Station - Jagner, District -Agra.

5. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the revisionist. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The revisionist, who is the sole accused of the case, denied the charges, and was put on his trial. The prosecution examined four witnesses, that is to say, P.W.1 Pratap Singh, P.W.2 Tunda Ram (father of the deceased), P.W.3 Dr. A.K. Singh, and P.W.4 Gopi Chand. The documentary evidence, that was produced, included the charge-sheet, the site-plan, the written information received, and the chik FIR.

6. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stated that the prosecution was false, but declined to enter defence. It was P.W.2, the deceased's father, who supported the prosecution, testifying to all the facts in issue and the relevant facts. He identified the revisionist in the dock as the driver, apart from testifying to facts relating to boarding the vehicle, the fact about it being driven at a high speed and with negligence, the fact about the accident, and the resultant death of Mukesh, the victim.

7. It appears that before the Magistrate, it was urged on behalf of the revisionist that he was moving in the Jugar along with his family, when the deceased and the other injured voluntarily boarded it as gratuitous passengers. The revisionist did not offer them a ride, or compelled them to board it. It was, therefore, contended that there was no such duty of care owed, which may invite a prosecution under Section 304A or 279 IPC. The Magistrate found the fact about the accident and the resultant death in the circumstances, stated by the prosecution, to be proved. The Magistrate held that it is established that the revisionist was driving a Jugar, regarding which a report of accident has been submitted. She further held that a Jugar has