w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Lakhan Singh v/s State of Rajasthan

    Criminal Revision Petition No. 852 of 2008

    Decided On, 14 September 2015

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

    For the Petitioner: Jitendra Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Meenakshi Pareek, PP.



Judgment Text

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgement/order dated 25.7.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi in Cr. Appeal No. 15/2007, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the judgement/order dated 25.10.2007 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa, District Bundi in Cr. Case No. 373/1996, by which he convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as under:

Under Section 279 Indian Penal Code: To undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' SI Under Section 337 Indian Penal Code: To undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

fine, to further undergo 15 days' SI Under Section 304A Indian Penal Code: To undergo 2 years' SI with a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's SI Under Section 184 of MV Act: To undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' SI.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

"Complainant PW-2 Abdul Hakeem lodged a written report Ex.-P/1 at Police Station, Nainwa, District Bundi regarding an incident alleged to have taken place on 13.11.1996. On the basis of the said report, the police registered FIR No. 404/1996 for the offence under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 IPC end investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 304A Indian Penal Code in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa, District Bundi, who took cognisance of the offences. Thereafter the charges were read over to the accused petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A Indian Penal Code and Sections 66/192, 123/192 and 184 of MV Act. The accused petitioner denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got recorded their statements. Thereafter the statement of the accused person was recorded. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court, vide judgement/order dated 25.10.2007 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner, as indicated above.

3. Against the said judgement the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate court. The Appellate Court i.e. Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi, vide judgement/order dated 25.7.2008 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement/order passed by the trial court.

4. Hence, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the courts below while passing the judgement/orders dated 25.7.2008 and 25.10.2007 have not considered the facts in accordance with law. He has further contended that from the evidence that came on record and produced by the prosecution during trial, the alleged offence is not made out against the petitioner. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. He has further contended that there are serious contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and even in spite of the contradictions and omissions, the trial court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner and which has wrongly been confirmed by the appellate court. He has further contended that the accident had not occurred on account of the negligence of the petitioner, who was a driver, but it had occurred on account of mechanical defect in the vehicle and due to this reason he could not have the control over the vehicle. He has further contended that before falling in the river, there was some loud sound and same was due to breaking of the Spendal. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held liable for this accident. He has also drawn the attention of this Court on the mechanical report and requested that in this view of the matter, the judgements/orders passed by the courts below should be quashed and set-aside.

On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has contended that the trial court while passing the impugned judgement/order dated 25.10.2007 has rightly assessed the evidence submitted by the prosecution and thereafter has passed the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence. She has further contended that 35 persons died in this accident and more than 19 persons have sustained injuries, which are simple or grievous in nature. The petitioner Lakhan Singh, who was the driver of the vehicle in question, was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and more than 60 passengers were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident. She has further contended that only 15-20 passengers are allowed in the Mini Bus. The petitioner has not followed the provisions, as provided in the M.V. Act. She has further contended that the judgements/orders passed by the Courts below are just and proper, hence no interference is required by this Court in the aforesaid judgements/orders. Further she has drawn the attention of this Court on the relevant part of the judgement/order passed by the Court below, which is reproduced as under:

"LANGUAGE"

6 I have hearD learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. I have also gone through the relevant material made available to me.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of the prosecution witnesses, in my view, the trial court as well as appellate court are found to have rightly assessed the evidence submitted by the prosecution.

8. I am in agreement with the observations made by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi in his judgement/order dated 25.7.2008. the relevant part whereof is reproduced as under:

"LANGUAGE"

9. Now considering each and every aspect of the matter, I do not think it proper to acquit the accused petitioner or to set-aside the judgement/order dated 25.7.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Past Track) No. 1, Bundi in Cr. Appeal No. 15/2007, and the judgement/order dated 25.10.2007 passed by Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate. Nainwa. District Bundi in Cr. Case No. 373/1996 because due to the negligence of the petitioner 35 persons died on the spot and 19 persons sustained injuries in the said accident. Accordingly, I dismiss the revision petition filed by the petitioner after confirming the judgement/order dated 25.7.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi in Cr. Appeal No. 15/2007, and the judgement/order dated 25.10.2007 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa, District Bundi in Cr. Case No 373/1996.

10. Since the petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner will surrender before the trial court on or before 21st September. 2015.

12. in this view of the matter, I order accordingly. If the petitioner does net surrender before the trial court on or before 21st September, 2015, then the trial court will issue non bailable warrant against the petitioner for taking him in custody to serve rest part of the sentence, as awarded to him by the court below.

OR

Already A Member?

Also