State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor v. For

Order JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 16/07/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 22/08/2025

1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.10.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bansoor, District Alwar in Criminal Case No. 136/2003 and judgment dated 20.06.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Behror, District Alwar (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No.37/2005, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 279 of IPC:- Six months simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further ten days simple imprisonment Under Section 304-A IPC:- Two years simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, further ten month simple imprisonment [2025:RJ-JP:28434] (2 of 7) [CRLR-640/2007]

2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that complainant Ram Singh has submitted a written report at Police Station Bansoor alleging therein that on 14.04.2003 in the morning at about 7.00 A.M., he and his father Tulsi Ram were going from their village Chhipari to village Ladpur for some agricultural work and while reaching only at a distance of 200 meters from School, a motor cycle driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner Jaimal hits his father from behind due to which his father sustained injuries on his head and became unconscious and during investigation expired.

3. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against petitioner Jaimal before the competent court. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above and while maintaining the sentence, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned appellate court hence this revision petition.

4. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients to hold the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. He further submits that FIR was delayed by six days. The deceased was discharged from hospital on 21.4.2024 and thereafter he expired on 06.05.2024 after 22 days of the accident. The death was caused due to medical negligence in which no role can be attributed to the present petitioner. The judgments passed [2025:RJ-JP:28434] (3 of 7) [CRLR-640/2007] by the trial court as well as by appellate court are liable to be set aside because judgments are not in accordance with the legal principles. Both the courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, hence the petition may be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that sufficient evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove guilt of the petitioner. There are eye-witnesses of the incident who have been examined by the prosecution and they have supported the prosecution story though deceased was expired after 21 days of the incident but medical evidence as well as Post Mortem Report makes it crystal clear that the deceased died due to the injury caused in the accident, hence concurrent findings of both the courts below require no interference and the appeal may be rejected.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 Ramsingh, PW.2 Mahaveer, PW.3 Subesingh, PW.4 Ratansingh, PW.5 Harisingh Saini, PW.6 Radheshyam Singh, PW.7 Daulatram, PW.8 Ranjeet Singh, PW.9 Suresh Kumar, PW.10 Manoharlal, PW.11 Dr. Subhash Agarwal, PW.12 Rampat and PW.13 Dr. Birbal Yadav as oral evidence and produced Ex.P.1 written report, P.2 Chalked FIR Ex.P.3 site plan, Ex. P.4 report under Section 174 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.5 Inquest Report of dead body, Ex.P.6 Supardagi of dead body, Ex.P.7 mechanical inspection report of motor cycle, Ex.P.8 seizure memo of motor cycle, Ex.P.9 memo of seized documents, Ex.P.10 Post Mortem report, Ex.P.11 Notice under Section 133 of M.V. Act, Ex.P.12 X-ray report, Ex.P.13 X-ray plate and Ex.P.14 injury report of Tulsiram as documentary evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:28434] (4 of 7) [CRLR-640/2007]

8. The statements of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the entire incriminating evidence was put to him to which he pleaded innocence and alleged previous enmity. In defence the accused did not examine any witness.

9. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival submissions and scanned the matter carefully.

10. On perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the learned trial court relying on the evidence of eye witness PW.1 Ram Singh who is son of deceased Tulsi Ram as well as other eye-witnesses PW.2 Mahaveer, PW.3 Subesingh, PW.4 Ratansingh, PW.5 Harisingh Saini, and PW.12 Rampat came to the conclusion that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the deceased. The evidence of police official PW.6 Radheshyam who prepared the mechanical inspection report of the vehicle of the petitioner has specifically stated that motor cycle was perfectly in order. Thus, it can safely be concluded that when there was no defect in the motor cycle, loosing control of the motor cycle itself, speaks about the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.

11. It will be pertinent to mention here that petitioner himself has admitted the Ex. P.10 post mortem report which was prepared on 06.5.2003 and reflecting the cause of death is brain hemorrhage and hematoma causing shock and having the injuries anti mortem in nature and the age of scars were about 15 days. Hence it can be logically deduced that the deceased got the injuries in the accident which led to the death of the deceased even after obtaining the medical treatment. [2025:RJ-JP:28434] (5 of 7) [CRLR-640/2007]

12. This petition being a revision petition against the concurrent finding of the trial court as well as appellate court, hence scope of interference on the factual aspect is very limited. The evidence on record shows that the petitioner was not disputing his presence at the place of accident. He also not disputed the death of deceased Tulsi Ram and his identity before the learned trial court though it was his defence that he was involved due to enmity but in support of his defence he has not produced any evidence by which it can be concluded that he was not responsible for the accident.

13. The cumulative effect of entire evidence on record leads to the conclusion that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner which resulted into death of Tulsi Ram, therefore, the learned trial court as well as the appellate court has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and passed correct judgments. Thus, the offences having been clearly established from the version of the eye- witnesses as also the material available on record, therefore, I find no infirmity with the well reasoned order of the courts below. The present revision petition must fail and accordingly the same is dismissed.

14. Now, the only question that arises is whether imposition of sentence is tenable.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents nor had any intention to cause accident. He is around 60 years of age and sole bread earner in the family and the revision has been pending since the year 2007, therefore, a lenient view may be taken. [2025:RJ-JP:28434] (6 of 7) [CRLR-640/2007]

16. With regard to imposition of fine, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Versus Saurabh Bakshi, 2015 (2) RCR (Criminal) 495 held as under: “17. In the instant case the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. This Court has been constantly noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent. It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage. The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all respect for law. A man with the means has, in possibility, graduated himself to harbour the idea that he can escape from the substantive sentence by payment of compensation. Neither the law nor the court that implements the law should ever get oblivious of the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in a way, worse then death. Such developing of notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orderly society. Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously temperamental. Needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is "the crowning glory", "the sovereign mistress" and "queen of virtue" as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate court should be reduced to six months.” [2025:RJ-JP:28434] (7 of 7) [CRLR-640/2007]

17. This fact is not controverted that the petitioner is a first time offender and incident is around 22 years old. The petitioner is around 60 years of age and sole bread earner in the family, therefore, in view of the aforesaid background, this Court deems it just and proper to modify the sentence and reduce it to a period of six months. The quantum of fine and default shall remain intact.

18. The petitioner, who is on bail, should surrender before the learned trial Court immediately else, the learned Magistrate is directed to take steps to procure the presence of the petitioner to serve out his remaining jail sentence.

19. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.

20. Registry is directed to send back the record of courts below with a copy of this judgment. BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/15 (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J