Dismissed

Mohabath Singh v. State

Uttarakhand HC29 Oct 2013CRLA/316/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for rash and negligent driving causing death under Section 304-A IPC. While affirming the mens rea, the Court reduced the sentence and imposed a fine payable as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000 directed to be paid to next of kin as compensation.

Mohabath Singh Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.316 of 2002

¶3

Mohabath Singh … Appellant vs. State of Uttarakhand … Respondent

¶4

Mr. Miland Raj, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Deepak Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suhail Ahmad Siddiqui, A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

Hon’ble U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶6

PW1 Saahab Singh wrote a complaint (Ex.Ka-1) to the Incharge Kotwali, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 09.12.1998, which was registered as case crime no.1376/1998 at Police Station Rudrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 302 / 307 IPC. Mohabath Singh (appellant herein), Amarjeet Singh, Malook Singh and Kuldeep Singh were named in the FIR.

¶7

Investigation began on the basis of said first information report. After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-5) was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Mohabath Singh (appellant), Amarjeet Singh, Malook Singh and Kuldeep Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 302 / 307 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charges against Mohabath Singh (appellant-accused), Amarjeet Singh, Malook Singh and Kuldeep Singh were framed for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

¶8

PW1 Saahab Singh, PW2 Smt. Mahendra Kaur, PW3 Harbhajan Singh, PW4 Dr. M. S. Sharma, PW5 Vinod Kumar

¶9

-2-

¶10

Sharma, PW6 K. C. Pundir, PW7 Vikram Singh and PW8 Virendra Singh Raghav were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence.

¶11

After conclusion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge, District Udham Singh Nagar, vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2002, exonerated the accused persons for the charges under Sections 302/34 IPC & 307/34 IPC. Accused-appellant was, however, found guilty and was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. Aggrieved against the same, the present criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant.

¶12

PW1, in his examination-in-chief, supported the prosecution story. He said that the incident took place on 09.12.1998 at about 11:30 AM. He said that he alongwith his mother (PW2) was present at Pandit’s shop near Kichha by-pass road. Sukhvinder Singh came from the side of Rudrapur. He was talking to PW1 and PW2. Accused-appellant and co-accused persons wanted to forcibly occupy the land of PW1. A truck bearing registration no.UP14 7435, which was being driven by appellant-Mohabath Singh (and other accused were sitting inside the truck), came from the side of Kichha. Other accused persons exhorted the appellant to kill PW1, PW2 and the victim (Sukhvinder Singh). Accused-appellant was about to kill them. PW1 and PW2 withdrew themselves, but the victim Sukhvinder Singh could not alight himself from the scooter. The appellant hit and crushed Sukhvinder Singh beneath the truck. The

¶13

-3-

¶14

incident was witnessed by Harbhajan Singh and Rajwant Singh. Accused-appellant and other accused persons fled away towards the fields. PW1 and PW2 went to the Government Hospital, Rudrapur. Sukhvinder Singh could not be saved and he succumbed to his injuries. Complaint (Ex.Ka-1) was written with the assistance of Harbhajan Singh. PW1 was cross-examined at length, but nothing adverse came in his statement, so as to suggest that PW1’s testimony should be treated with suspicion.

¶15

PW2 Smt. Mahendra Kaur also supported the prosecution story and corroborated the statement of PW1. She also said that PW1, Rajwant Singh and Harbhajan Singh chased the accused persons, but one of them threatened with dire consequences by firing pistol in the air. PW2 was also cross-examined by the defence counsel but nothing adverse came in her statement so as to disbelieve her testimony.

¶16

PW3 Harbhajan Singh was also an eyewitness of the incident, who supported the testimony of PW1 and PW2. PW4 Dr. M. S. Sharma, Medical Officer conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 10.12.1998 and proved the postmortem report (Ex.Ka-2). PW4 opined that the ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased could have been inflicted on 09.12.1998 at 11:00 AM. It was possible that the ante-mortem injuries were sustained by collision with a heavy vehicle.’

¶17

PW5 was the Investigating Officer of the case. He conducted the investigation of the case at some length. Remaining part of the investigation was conducted by PW6 Inspector K. C. Pundir, who concluded the same by filing chargesheet (Ex.Ka-5).

¶18

-4-

¶19

PW7 was a formal witness, who proved the chick FIR (Ex.Ka-6), the entry of the same in the G.D. (Ex.Ka-7) and other related papers.

¶20

The testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 inspired confidence. The oral testimony of PW1, PW2 & PW3 was further corroborated by PW4 (medical evidence). The prosecution story was further supported by the peripheral evidence of PW5, PW6, PW7 & PW8. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date and time of the incident, accused-appellant drove the truck rashly and negligently, due to which the truck crushed the victim resulting into his death. Had the accused-appellant intention to commit the murder of Sukhvinder Singh, PW1 & PW2, he would not have spared PW1 and PW2 and also dashed them with his truck. It, therefore, transpires that he had no intention to kill the victim, but he was definitely driving truck rashly and negligently, which cost the life of Sukhvinder Singh. The trial court was correct in exonerating the appellant and other accused of the charges under Sections 302 / 307 IPC and convicting the appellant under Section 304-A IPC.

¶21

Learned trial court discussed and appreciated the prosecution evidence correctly. Learned trial court, therefore, committed no mistake in holding that the prosecution was able to prove it’s case under Section 304-A IPC against the accusedappellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. This Court also assessed the prosecution evidence independently to come to the conclusion that the trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, in as much as there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3. The evidence of these eye-witnesses cannot be disregarded, minor discrepancies

¶22

-5-

¶23

in their testimony notwithstanding. The appellant was driving the truck rashly and negligently, he proceeded towards the victim, who could not alight from the scooter and therefore the appellant dashed his truck with the victim, resulting in his (Sukhvinder Singh’s) death. No interference is, thus, called for in the impugned judgment and order. The conviction of the accused-appellant is hereby affirmed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant remained in jail for two months twice. He prayed that a lenient view be taken against the appellant and the sentence awarded to him be reduced in as much as he is ready to deposit fine before the court below.

¶25

Taking into account the whole conspectus of things, it looks proper if the period of sentence is reduced and the appellant is directed to pay a fine, which should be given to the next of kin of the victim as compensation.

¶26

The impugned judgment and order is, therefore, modified to the extent that the accused-appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. If the amount of fine is recovered from the appellant, then the same shall be awarded as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the next of kin of the victim.

¶27

Criminal appeal preferred by the accused-appellant is, therefore, dismissed with the above observations and modification in the sentence. The accused-appellant is on bail.

¶28

-6-

¶29

His bail is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Court concerned forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him by this Court.

¶30

Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court record be sent to the court below for ensuring compliance as above.

¶31

Dated 29^th October, 2013

¶32

Rawat

Mohabath Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohabath Singh 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

Sarika Sethi Vs State Of Uttarakhand Through Principal Secretary Home and Others

Gurucharan Singh Vs State and Others

Mado Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Praveen and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Surendra Chaddha and Anr. Vs Kishan Maurya

Nasir Ahmad Vs State of Uttaranchal