Dismissed

Rashid v. State

Rajasthan HC10 May 2024CRLR/265/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death. The court found no infirmity in lower courts' findings and upheld the sentence, ordering the petitioner's custody.

What did the court decide?

dismissed criminal revision petition, confiscated bail bonds, accused to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence.

Rashid Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22099]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.265/2005

¶4

Rashid son of Sh. Kasam resident of Gram Baral Second, Police Station Bijay Nagar, Beawar (Ajmer) (At present the accused petitioner is in Sub Jail Beawar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

Reserved on 06/03/2024 Pronounced on 10/05/2024

¶13

After giving several opportunities to learned counsel for the petitioner, no endevours were made to argue the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner was absent on the last date of hearing. A report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor shows that the petitioner-Rashid is still alive and residing in Gram Baral Second, Police Station Bijay Nagar, Beawar.

¶14

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1997 and the present criminal revision petition is pending since the year 2005.

¶15

The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beawar in Criminal Appeal No.7/1998, upholding the

(2 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:22099]

[CRLR-265/2005]

judgment dated 07.04.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bijaynagar in Criminal Case No.180/1997, whereby the accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶20

Under Section 279 IPC:-

¶21

Three months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶22

Under Section 304-A IPC:-

¶23

One year simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.1997 one Madan Lal Joshi Sarpanch of Village Baral, informed telephonically at Police Station Bijay Nagar, Beawar that driver of truck bearing No.RRE3019, hit Bunty S/o Ashok Kumar, aged three years and caused accident. FIR No.20/1997 was registered for the offences under Section(s) 279 and 304A of IPC against the petitioner. The police, after concluding the investigation, has submitted the challan against the petitioner for the offences under Section 279 and 304A of IPC. The learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and the statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where he denied the prosecution and examined three witnesses on his behalf. After hearing both the sides, the trial court convicted and sentenced to the accused petitioner vide its judgment dated 07.04.1998. Being aggrieved by the judgment

[2024:RJ-JP:22099]

[CRLR-265/2005]

(3 of 7)

dated 07.04.1998 passed by the trial Court, the accused petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court, but the same was dismissed vide its order dated 15.02.2005. Hence, this revision petition.

¶29

In the revision petition, the impugned order, is assailed on the following grounds:-

¶30

a) The conviction recorded by the trial court is contrary to the law and material available on the law; hence, it is legally unsustainable.

¶31

b) The prosecution failed to establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, the conviction and sentence can not be sustained against the petitioner.

¶32

c) There are several contradictions in the infirmity's statements of witnesses, and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of witnesses. The conviction based on such evidence is not sustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. arid d) That the learned trial court convicted the petitioner despite the serious contradiction amongst statements of prosecution witnesses.

¶33

e) The learned trial court has also erred in appreciating that the prosecution has proved the petitioner's negligent and rash driving. 6. The Learned PP justifies the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and prays for petition dismissal. 7. The scope under revisional jurisdiction is minimal, and only court can re-examine the evidence if the conclusions are baseless or based on improper appreciation of or against the evidence.

¶34

It is undisputed that a little kid of 3 years died at the spot, and petitioner Rashid was driving the questioned Vehicle. This fact

[2024:RJ-JP:22099]

[CRLR-265/2005]

(4 of 7)

is proved by the Eyewitness PW 5 Vishram Lal PW 8 Ramkaran and the concerned Doctor Anil Kumar, who conducted an autopsy and prepared the post-mortem report Ex 8. This fact has not been refuted or denied by the accused petitioner. Further, the nature of the injuries caused to the deceased kid suggests that the petitioner was not only negligent but rash as the deceased scalp was entirely crushed, resulting in fractures of partial frontal and temporal bones with crushing injuries of both the cerebral hemispheres. The site plan Ex P 5 exhibits that the place of occurrence is clustered with houses on both sides of the road. Therefore, the act of the petitioner suddenly starting the vehicle without applying a warning and blowing the horn appears per-se negligent and rash act.

¶39

The main question that remains to be discussed is the negligence and carelessness of the accused. Among the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the statement of complainant Vishramlal is essential. Vishramlal has described seeing the incident. He deposes that the incident occurred at 7.30 am. The accused suddenly drove the parked truck without blowing the horn and watching back or front, resulting in the death of a young child. In his cross-examination, he denies that the accident occurred because a child unexpectedly came running before the vehicle. This witness further deposed that kids were playing in the surrounding area where, before the accident, a truck was lying parked.

¶40

PW 8 Ramkaran has stated that a child died after colliding with the vehicle. The statement of Ramkaran is relevant up to the extent that a child died at the spot after colliding with the truck.

[2024:RJ-JP:22099]

[CRLR-265/2005]

(5 of 7)

The witness has not deposed the manner and reason for the accident.

¶45

In defence, the accused has examined DW 1 Amaluddin, DW 2 Chand Mohammad and DW 3 Ompraksh. In their examination, in chief, they deposed that the accident occurred because the child unexpectedly came running before the truck.

¶46

In the Cross-Examination of the Material witness PW 5 Vishram and PW 8 Ramkaran, the names of the defence witnesses have not been introduced. Likewise, names of the defence witnesses have not been put forth during the cross-examination of the investigating officer PW 3 Ramdayal, implying their presence at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the presence of the defence witnesses at the place of occurrence is unlikely, and there is no convincing reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW 5 Vishram Lal. The above circumstances show that the defence version has been only an afterthought.

¶47

I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings arrived at by the courts below. The courts below have rightly convicted the accused petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.

¶48

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur rendered in Criminal Appeal No.844/2023 SLP (Criminal) No.2984 of 2018 dated 28.03.2023 after referring the judgments of State of M.P. Vs. Bablu 2014 (9) SCC 281 held as under:-

¶49

“the prime objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is necessary with the gravity nature of crime and

[2024:RJ-JP:22099]

[CRLR-265/2005]

(6 of 7)

the manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is therefore, the solemn duty of the Court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as awarding the lesser sentence encourages any criminal and as a result of the same, the society suffers.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶54

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur set aside the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby, Hon’ble High Court upheld the conviction of respondent under Section 304A of the IPC. However, has reduced the sentence from two years to eight months, subject to prior deposit of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to be paid to family/legal heirs of the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above matter, restored the sentence of two years and fine imposed by the trial Courts below.

¶55

Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the view that sentence awarded to accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC commensurate with the offence committed and there is no cogent reasons for the Court to reduce the sentence of the accused-petitioner.

¶56

In view of the above, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. The accused-petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties are forfeited. He is directed to be taken into custody

[2024:RJ-JP:22099]

[CRLR-265/2005]

(7 of 7)

forthwith and sent to the concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of his sentences. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith.

¶61

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶62

Ramesh Vaishnav/86

Rashid v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid v. State

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

Ramjilal Verma S/O Late Ramsukhlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramniwas S/O Gheesaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram S/O Shri Ummed Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Haji Younis Khan Son of Chand Muhammad, Vs State of Rajasthan

Aniket Shah Son of Shri Rajesh Kumar Shah, Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Gupta Vs State