Jai Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.—By this criminal revision petition, challenge is made to the order dated 24.5.2001 whereby order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court has been upheld. It is a case where petitioner has been convicted for an offence under sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is for rash and negligent driving causing death of one Hari Singh.

It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter as he was not duty driver of the bus which met with an accident. At the time of lodging FIR, his name was not given and no material was produced to show petitioner''s involvement. In the light of the aforesaid, petitioner has wrongly been convicted and sentenced under sections 304-A and 279 IPC. At the relevant time, one Raghuveer (PW-9), was the duty driver and driving the bus.

It is further stated that implication of the petitioner is on the basis of statement of PW-5-Madan Mohan though his statement has not been referred while recording statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. thus his statement should not have been relied by the trial court so as the appellate court. In ignorance of the provision of section 313 Cr.P.C. reliance on statement of PW-5 has been made though it should have been ignored. For all these reasons, order of conviction deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Learned PP has supported the order of conviction so as the order passed in appeal. It is stated that statements of PW-1-Khemchand, PW-5-Madan Mohan, PW-6- Dharm Singh and PW-9-Raghuveer show petitioner''s involvement in the accident which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The deceased was sitting on the motorcycle on the road side, however, due to rash and negligent driving by the accused, accident was caused. The eye witness has given facts pertaining to accident due to rash and negligent driving thus conviction of the petitioner is based on evidence. It is further stated that statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. make a reference of relevant evidence. PW-9 Raghuveer stated that the bus was taken by the petitioner when he left it due to stomach pain. Taking note of the aforesaid and other material, petitioner was found driving the bus thus he has rightly been convicted and sentenced.

I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

It is a case where accident took place by the bus of the Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation as has been admitted by PW-7-Prahlad, who was the Conductor of the bus on the date of accident. From the facts aforesaid, it comes out that accident took place by the Corporation''s bus where one Hari Singh died.

The question now comes as to whether petitioner was driving the bus or not and as to whether this fact has been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not?

According to the petitioner, in the FIR and while recording statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., name of the petitioner was not given, rather, to find out name of the driver, notice u/s 133 Cr.P.C. was given. The facts aforesaid show that name of the driver was not known and petitioner was falsely implicated in the matter.

I have considered the aforesaid facts and find that so far as PW-1-Khamchand is concerned, he is the witness of the accident but did not name accused to be driver of the bus. So far as PW-5- Madan Mohan is concerned, he has named the petitioner to be driver of the bus as he was knowing him for past 7-8 years. Petitioner is one who is serving as Driver in the depot concerned of the Corporation which fact has come in evidence. PW-6-Dharm Singh is IO of the case and has named the petitioner. PW-9--Raghuveer is driver of the bus in question and he left the bus due to stomach pain. He named the petitioner, who was driving the bus after him. If the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is looked into, it is, no doubt, true that reference of statement of PW-5--Madan Mohan does not exist in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. but Ex.P-6 and statement of PW-9--Raghuveer has been referred. Taking note of the aforesaid, it is proved that petitioner was driving the bus after it was left by PW-9 Raghuveer, who was driving the bus, being driver on duty and left the bus due to stomach pain.

In view of the above, it cannot be said that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and it is proved that he was driving the bus at the time of accident. It is while recording statement of the petitioner u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and even if statement of PW-5 Madan Mohan is ignored. Thus, issue raised by learned counsel for petitioner is decided against the petitioner holding that prosecution has proved its case regarding driving of the bus by the petitioner at the time of accident.

The fact, however, remains as to whether accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving. For the aforesaid, statement of eye witness PW-1 Khamchand Sharma and other witnesses are sufficient to show that accident was caused by the bus on the wrong side where motorcycle was standing. It was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner that accident took place as is coming out from statements of witnesses. Thus, offence under sections 304A and 279 IPC is made out. Hence, conviction of the petitioner is maintained.

Now comes the sentence awarded to the petitioner. The accident is old by 22 years. Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for offence u/s 304A IPC for one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment thereof, he is to further undergo three months simple imprisonment and for offence u/s 279 IPC he has been sentenced for three months'' simple imprisonment. The above sentence needs to be modified looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case where the matter is old by 22 years. Therefore, I modify the sentence as under--

For offence u/s 304A IPC, petitioner is punished with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment thereof, undergo three months'' simple imprisonment.

For offence u/s 279 IPC, petitioner is punished with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment thereof, undergo one month''s simple imprisonment.

Apart from the aforesaid, petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the family of the deceased Hari Singh towards compensation as is provided u/s 357 Cr.P.C. In case of default of payment of compensation within a period of three months from today, petitioner to undergo three months simple imprisonment. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, criminal revision petition is disposed of.