Allowed

Abhey Ram v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2013CRR/1937/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision against a criminal sentence for rash driving causing death, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the revision relying on a Supreme Court pre cedent. The Court held that the driver could not be faulted for starting the bus after the conductor's signal and set aside the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was set aside.

Abhey Ram Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRR No.1937 of 2002 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R.R No.1937 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.04.2013

Abhey Ram

...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Anmol Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

¶14

¶15

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)

¶19

The present revision has been filed against the concurrent orders sentencing the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC (where however the Appellate Court has reduced the sentence under Section 304-A from 1½ years to 1 year).

¶20

The allegations are that the complainant accompanied by his mother-in-law and father-in-law had reached at Indri Chowk, Ladwa by bus and when he and his father-in-law alighted and his mother-in-law was in the

¶21

CRR No.1937 of 2002 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

process of alighting the conductor blew whistle (petitioner in the connected revision). On the said whistle the petitioner-co-accused (driver) started the bus as a result of which the complainant's mother-in-law fell down and the rear wheel of the bus passed over her body resulting in her death.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as soon as the conductor blew the whistle the petitioner started the bus and therefore the negligence, if any, was on the part of the conductor since it was not the job of the petitioner to verify about the actual position regarding embarking and disembarking passengers. In this connection he has placed reliance on para 11 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2000(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 619 which is as follows:-

¶25

“11. In the present case the possible explanation of the driver is that he was unaware of even the possibility of the accident which happened. It could be so. When he moved the vehicle forward his focus normally would have been towards what was ahead of the vehicle. He is not expected to move the vehicle forward when passengers are in the process of boarding the vehicle. But when e gets a signal from the conductor that the bus can proceed he is expected to start moving the vehicle. Here no witness has said, including the conductor, that the driver moved the vehicle before getting the signal to move forward. The evidence in this case is too scanty to fasten him with criminal negligence. Some further evidence is indispensably needed to presume that the passenger fell down due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Such further evidence is lacking

¶26

CRR No.1937 of 2002 (O&M)

¶27

-3-

¶28

in this case. Therefore, the Court is disabled from concluding that the victim fell down only because of the negligence driving of the bus. The corollary thereof is that the conviction of the appellant of the offence is unsustainable.”

¶29

Learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that this judgment has been considered by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has held after noticing this judgment that since the wife of the complainant was alighting from the front door it was also the duty of the petitioner to ascertain that she had fully alighted before starting the bus.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this conclusion of the Court below cannot be supported because it has come in the testimony of the complainant himself that the bus was absolutely full and therefore no duty could have cast on the petitioner to ascertain whether the passengers had alighted.

¶31

I find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted above and no fault can be led at the door of the petitioner.

¶32

Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is set aside.

¶33

Since the main case has been decided, the pending criminal miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶34

April 23, 2013 ashish

¶35

( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE

Abhey Ram v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhey Ram v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Robin Dua Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sanju Rana @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Karambir Vs State of Haryana

Gurdip Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab