Partly allowed

Ramchandra v. State of Raj.

Rajasthan HC11 Oct 2023CRLR/1332/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court found that the courts below's findings of fact regarding a traffic accident causing death were not perverse. While declining to reappreciate evidence, the court reduced the petitioner's sentence for substantial justice due to the 25-year legal journey and his clean prior record.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone; criminal revision petition disposed of.

Ramchandra Vs State of Raj. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1332/2003

¶3

Ramchandra S/o Shri Devilal, aged 62 years, R/o Bus Stand, Khai Road, Nyapura, Kota (At present in central Jail Tonk)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Raj through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order

¶10

11/10/2023

¶11

Petitioner faced trial in criminal case No. 162/98 for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. The learned trial Judge found the petitioner guilty and awarded three months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 279 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The conviction was challenged in criminal appeal No. 78/2000, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court on 03.12.2003.

¶12

The prosecution case is that the informant was going on a motor cycle alongwith his two minor children, aged about 14 years and 12 years. The referred truck, which was being driven by the petitioner, dashed the motorcycle from behind; the children fell down and came under the wheels of the truck, resulting in death.

¶13

Allegation is that the petitioner was negligent and rash, even he had not horned. The informant has supported the prosecution case as an eye-witness.

¶14

(2 of 3) [CRLR-1332/2003]

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no other witness of the incident. The informant is an interested witness. Rather, defence of the petitioner is that the motor cycle was going on side by side the truck and the motor cycle got slipped, which resulted in fall of the children and their accidental death. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the photographs of the incident obtained by the police and brought on the record, would show that the motor-cycle was at the side of the truck, fallen on the ground and crushed bodies were also there.

¶16

However, there is no direct testimony that the motor-cycle was going side by side the truck.

¶17

The scope of interference with concurrent finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction was stated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam reported in (2009) 13

¶18

SCC 330 as follows:-

¶19

….if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of reappreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence.

¶20

This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice.

¶21

….The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.”

¶22

[CRLR-1332/2003]

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶25

Court in Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. The State of Chattisgarh reported in AIR 2022 SC 3283, wherein, the Supreme Court made the following observation:-

¶26

“8. ….The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘CrPC’) vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.”

¶27

Since judgments of the courts below do not suffer from any perversity, this third court cannot look into the trustworthiness of testimony of the witnesses or probative value of their evidence. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction.

¶28

However, considering the trauma of conviction faced by the petitioner in the long journey of criminal litigation since last 25 years and the fact that no previous conviction of the petitioner is brought on the record, for substantial justice, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶29

With the aforesaid modification in sentence, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶31

ashu /2

Ramchandra v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra v. State of Raj.

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

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L.) Vs Umesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Hari Shankar

Sohil S/O Shri Sahiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Jain S/O Late Shri Prem Chand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan S/O Shri Jethanand Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Krishan Dubey Vs Bajrang Lal Bajaj and Ors.

Rajendra Meena S/O Shri Vijay Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan