Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Virendra Kumar and another - Revisionists
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 320 of 2013
Decided On : 29-08-2023
Rash and Negligent Driving - Criminal Case - Sections 279, 304-A IPC - The court discussed the evidence and technical inspection report to conclude that the accident was caused by the deceased's own negligence and the revisionists-accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a road accident resulting in the death of a passenger. The revisionists-accused were convicted under Sections 279, 304-A IPC for rash and negligent driving.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence and technical inspection report indicated that the accident was caused by the deceased's own negligence, leading to the conclusion that the revisionists-accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issue was whether the revisionists-accused were responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence and technical inspection report to determine the cause of the accident, ultimately concluding that the revisionists-accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was allowed, and the judgment and order convicting the revisionists-accused were set aside. The revisionists/accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the bail bonds and sureties were discharged.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2012, Virendra Kumar and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge Tehri Garhwal affirmed the judgment and order dated 26.10.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 190 of 2012, State Vs. Virendra Kumar and another, whereby, the revisionists-accused were convicted under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and were sentenced under Section 279 IPC for a term of three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-each, with default stipulation of 15 days’ additional simple imprisonment; two years’ simple imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/-each, with default stipulation of 15 days’ additional simple imprisonment.
2. As per the case of the prosecution a Tehrir (Ext.A1) was given to Incharge, Police Outpost Pipaldali, Police Station New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal against the driver and conductor (the present revisionists-accused), by informant-Dinesh Lal S/o Babu Ram (PW-3) with the allegations that on 03.08.2009 he alongwith his sister-in-law Vimla Devi @ Pingla Devi W/o Shri Ram Lal, R/o Village Rangeli, Badoliya, Patti Khas, District Tehri Garhwal boarded a Roadways bus No. UK-07-PA-0403 to Cholgaon Hospital; the aforesaid bus was being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently. When it reached near Government Primary School Cholgaon at about 09:45AM, due to jerk, door of the bus was opened and his sister-in-law fell out of the bus and came under the rear wheels of the bus and her head was crushed, and she died on the spot. On the aforesaid tehrir, the chick first information report (Ext. A7) on 03.08.2009 at 13:05 hours, was lodged in Police Outpost Pipaldali, Police Station New Tehri and a Case Crime No. 1428 of 2009 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was registered against the driver and conductor of the aforesaid bus i.e. present revisionists-accused. The inquest report (Ext.A10) was prepared on 03.08.2009, postmortem (Ext. A3) was conducted on 03.30 p.m. and the cause of death was shown as asphyxia and hemorrhage.
3. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionists-accused and the cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate Tehri Garhwal on 20.11.2009 and a Criminal Case No. 1365 of 2009 (New No. 190 of 2012), State Vs. Virendra Kumar and another was directed to be registered and revisionists-accused were summoned to face the trial.
4. After complying with the procedural necessity of supplying the prosecution documents to the revisionists-accused, their statements were recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C., to which, they pleaded not guilty and stated that the case of the prosecution was lodged against them wrongly.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses in order to substantiate the charges of rash and negligent act and driving and thereby causing death of Vimla Devi @ Pingla, such as PW-1 Parmanand, PW-2 Sumer Chand Kumai, PW-3 Dinesh Lal (informant), PW-4 Mohan Singh, PW-5 Gambhir Singh Rawat, PW-6 Dr. Sanjay Kansal, PW-7 SI Balwant Singh, PW-8 Constable Manvar Singh (scribe of the Tehrir ) and PW.-9 SI Sunil Rawat (Investigating Officer of the case).
6. It is relevant to mention here that PW-2 Sumer Chand Kumai stated in his statement that on 03.08.2009 at about 9:00 am, he was going from Gadolia to Tipri, he boarded the aforesaid Roadways bus from Gadolia to Tipri, the informant and the deceased were also sitting in the said bus. Before Cholgoan at Government Primary school, the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and the door of the bus was also open; all of a sudden deceased-Vimla Devi fell out of the bus and her head crushed by bus, due to which she died on the spot.
7. PW-3 informant (Dinesh Lal) also supported the version of the FIR.
8. PW-5 Gambhir Singh Rawat stated
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of rash and negligent driving, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to firmly establish the guilt of the accused, and the princi....
The court emphasized the importance of proving rash and negligent driving in cases involving accidents, and rejected claims of technical faults without sufficient evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable witness testimonies and the absence of evidence regarding technical faults in a motor accident case to establish negligence and uphold a conviction.
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 limited to patent errors or perversity; cannot reappraise evidence to upset concurrent findings of rash negligent driving causing deaths in overloaded d....
In a prosecution for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle and that their actions we....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a driver to exercise caution and adhere to traffic rules, emphasizing the need for deterrence in sentencing for offenses related to ras....
Skid marks and eyewitness high speed testimony prove rash negligent driving under IPC 279/337; revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings absent perversity.
Confirming conviction under IPC sections while modifying imprisonment based on circumstances and prior incarceration.
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
