Dismissed

Raju Gupta v. State

Rajasthan HC10 May 2024CRLR/665/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for rash and negligent driving causing death. The court rejected the plea to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, finding the award commensurate with the offence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be taken into custody forthwith to undergo remaining sentence; bail bonds forfeited.

Raju Gupta Vs State — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22098]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 665/2004

¶4

Raju Gupta S/o Shri Ramswaroop Gupta R/o House No.5200, Raigaron Ki Kothi, Ghat Gate, Jaipur. (Presently confined in Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma, Adv. 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

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1996 and the present criminal revision petition is pending since the year 2004.

¶14

The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.07.2004 passed by Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.1/1999, whereby the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment 23.11.1998 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.991/1996, whereby, the accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

[2024:RJ-JP:22098]

[CRLR-665/2004]

(2 of 6)

Under Section 304-A of IPC :- One year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment.

¶19

Under Section 279 of IPC:- Six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that on 28.10.1996 complainantJagdish Prasad Sharma lodged a written report (Ex.P.1) with the allegation that on the same day at 10.00 AM, his neighbour Bishan Sahai Jaiman reached near the road in front of Police Station Sodala to enter in the Bus then a Bus came in a fast speed and hit his neighbour, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injury on his head. He was brought to the Hospital, however, he died in the way. The Bus No. RJ-14 P 3877 was stopped by the Police persons of the Police Station. It was alleged that the accident took place on account of rash and negligence driving of the driver of the Bus.

¶21

The Police registered a case for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and after investigation, filed the chargesheet before the learned Magistrate against the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial Court after hearing of both the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above. The Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 20.07.2004, affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition

¶22

As far as rashness and negligent of the petitioner is concerned, prosecution mainly relies upon P.W. 1-Jagdish Prasad

[2024:RJ-JP:22098]

[CRLR-665/2004]

(3 of 6)

Sharma and PW-2 Gajendra Singh and both of them have deposed before the trial court that accused-petitioner drove the vehicle speedily and struck the deceased, resulting into injury at his head. Both the witnesses are independent witnesses and there is no cogent reason for the Court to disbelieve their testimony.

¶27

The Courts below have taken into consideration minor contradiction occurred in the cross-examination of witnesses, the contradictions are not material and this facts remains proved that petitioner speedily drove the bus and has struck the deceased Bishan Singh Jaiman which resulted into head injury and later on Bishan Singh Jaiman scummed to death.

¶28

The Courts below have delineated the minor contradictions and after delineating the contradictions have concurred the guilt of the present petitioner. 8. Merely, the other witnesses have turned hostile, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW-1 Jagdish Prasad Sharma and PW-2 Gajendra Singh. The presence of PW-2 at the place of occurrence is also proved by the prosecution as he was on duty in Police Station, Sodala which is just near to place of occurrence. Further, the site plan (Exhibit-P/2) shows that at the place of occurrence, there is a turn and a small circle and place is crowded with many shops. As per the prosecution story, P.W. 1- Jagdish Prasad Sharma and deceased Bishan Singh Jaiman, were waiting for the bus at the road side and in between accusedpetitioner while driving the bus speedily struck the deceased, resulting into head injury. Investigating Officer PW-10 Shrawan Singh has also denied the defence version that deceased while

[2024:RJ-JP:22098]

[CRLR-665/2004]

(4 of 6)

boarding on the bus fell on the road resulting into head injury to him.

¶33

It is also relevant to state that the petitioner has taken a plea that while boarding on a bus, deceased fell resulting into head injury. This plea has been denied by both the witnesses PW1 Jagdish Prasad Sharma & PW-2 Gajendra Singh in their corssexamination, therefore, the evidence of defence witnesses DW-1 seems to be after thought and statement of DW-1 Suresh is not believable.

¶34

After going through the entire evidence, I do not find any perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned courts below and they have rightly convicted the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC.

¶35

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in alternative prays that accused-petitioner has now attained the age of 58 years and occurrence relates back to 1996 and the accusedpetitioner has already served the sentence of about 2 months 4 days out of maximum sentence of 1 year rigorous imprisonment awarded to him. Therefore, sentence awarded to accusedpetitioner may be reduced to period already undergone by him.

¶36

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner places his reliance upon the judgments passed in Mahipal Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 277, Dilip Singh Vs. State: 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 9919 & Bhanwara Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2020(3) RLW 2348 (Raj.)

¶37

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposes the prayer to reduce the sentence of accused-petitioner as already undergone. He fervently submits that due to the rash

¶38

(5 of 6) [CRLR-665/2004]

¶39

[2024:RJ-JP:22098]

¶40

and negligent act of the accused-petitioner, deceased succumbed to death. Therefore, no leverage may be given to the accusedpetitioner.

¶41

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:-

¶42

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

¶43

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

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:22098]

[CRLR-665/2004]

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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 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.

¶50

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶51

Ramesh Vaishnav/86

Raju Gupta v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Gupta 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

Rashid Vs State