Dismissed

Lala Ram v. State

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2013CRLR/325/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death. The High Court, being a 2001 matter decided in 2013 due to absence, dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the detailed findings of lower courts.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; petitioner to be arrested forthwith and serve sentence; bail bonds cancelled.

Lala Ram Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.325/2001

¶4

Lala Ram Versus State

¶5

DATE OF ORDER : 10/01/2013

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶7

None present for petitioner Mr. Laxman Meena, P.P., for State

¶8

***

¶9

None appears even in second round. It is seen that none was there even on 29.06.2011, accordingly, the case is decided being a matter of 2001.

¶10

It is a case where petitioner was convicted for offence u/s.279, 304A IPC & 89/118 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced for six months' simple imprisonment for offence u/s.279 IPC and also under Section 304A IPC. The sentence for 15 days was for offence u/s.89/118A of Motor Vehicles Act. All the sentences were to be run concurrently. After conviction, appeal was preferred, however, it was also dismissed after considering material on record. The statement of PW-1, Harchand was considered who is said to be eye-witness of the incident. Further statements of PW-2 and PW-3 were considered. Taking note of their statements as well as material on record, order of conviction has been passed. The trial court as well as appellate court found evidence against petitioner, thus, conviction is based on a detailed finding recorded after

¶11

¶12

marshalling evidence. The petitioner was found involved in rash and negligent driving causing accident where a girl at the teenage died. The documents P1 & P5 were also considered in the light of statements of witnesses. PW-4, Ramovtar, who supported prosecution case and states that vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner, caused accident. He is again eye witness. The prosecution, thus, proved its case beyond doubt, statements of PW-5, Prithvi Singh & PW-6, Sultan Singh were also considered and mechanical report of the Jeep was also taken note of.

¶13

Looking to the overall facts, detailed and reasoned judgment, I do not find any ground to interfere in those two orders to entertain this revision petition, accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶14

The accused-petitioner is not present today. His bail bonds stand cancelled. On account of dismissal of revision petition, he be arrested forthwith. He will serve the sentence awarded to him. Record be sent back immediately.

¶15

[M.N. BHANDARI],J.

¶16

FRBOHRA/PA/325CRLREVPET2001.doc

¶17

Certificate:

¶18

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶19

FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A.

Lala Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lala Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Wazid Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Roshan Lal and Another Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Ramavtar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Rahis Babu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. an Vs Tej Singh and Anr.