Chattisgarh High Court
Salik Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 February, 2024
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:4918
Page No.1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 302 of 2016
1- Salik Ram S/o Vedram Suryawanshi Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village Kohka, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
1- State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate District Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh
-----Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Gourav Singhal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/02/2024
1. Applicant has filed this revision petition challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2016, passed in Criminal Appeal No.42/2016, whereby the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa has maintained the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.12.2005, passed in Criminal Case No.509/2005, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa U/s. 304-A of the I.P.C. and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.2 sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 6 months years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.08.1997 Ravi Kumar Singh informed the complainant- Bhagwan Singh that his nephew son-in-law Gopal Singh was dashed by applicant by the Mini Bus bearing No. MP-26C-5480 driven by him rashly and negligently at Mulmula square. Injured was admitted to the hospital and during the course of treatment, he died. Matter was reported to the concerned police station based upon which FIR was registered against applicant for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge- sheet was filed against applicant under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.
3. Applicant was charged with the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant denied the charge and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses on its behalf namely Indrapal Singh (P.W.-1), Bhagwan Singh (P.W.-2), Aniruddha Singh (P.W.-3), Jagat Ram (P.W.-4), Vijay (P.W.-5), Jal Mohammad (P.W.-6), Pheku Singh (P.W.-7), Ashish Kumar (P.W.-8) and Dulendra Kumar Singh (P.W.-9). Statement of applicant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined in defence.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.3
4. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the prosecution, convicted applicant for offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned above. The appeal preferred by applicant has been dismissed by the impugned order upholding the conviction and sentence against the applicant.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the conviction against the applicant is erroneous and without there being any cogent and clinching evidence. He further submits that both the Courts below have erred in appreciating the evidence available on record. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that applicant drove the vehicle at high speed and carelessly. Prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer hence in absence thereof the prosecution failed to prove the case against applicant. Hence, this revision petition be allowed and the conviction against the applicant be set-aside.
6. Alternatively, it is submitted that if the Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of applicant is just and proper, then considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 1997 and revision is of the year 2016, the age of the applicant was at that time i.e. 18 years and applicant has remained in jail for a period of 6 days. He has no criminal antecedents, he did not misuse the liberty granted to him during trial and appeal, the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.4 sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the grounds raised in revision and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, no case is made out for acquittal or for reduction of the sentences. Hence, the revision petition be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
9. It is not in dispute that on the date and time of incident, Gopal Singh met with an accident with vehicle driven by applicant and succumbed to the motor accidental injuries. Now it is to be considered that whether on the date and time of incident, applicant drove the Minibus rashly and negligently dashed the deceased Gopal Singh due to which he died.
10. Prosecution has examined Bhagwan Singh as (P.W.-2). He stated that he was informed by Ravi Kumar that his nephew son- in-law met with an accident. When he rushed to the place of incident, injured was taken to hospital. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police station vide Ex.P-4.
11. Anirudh Singh is examined as (P.W.-3). He stated that on the date of incident he was sitting in the hotel at Mulmula Chowk, deceased Gopal Singh was going from his side, at that relevant Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.5 time the vehicle of Kashyap Bus Service to which, the accused was driving dashed Gopal Singh from back side. He stated that police after spot inspection prepared spot map vide Ex.P-5 and seized the bus vide Ex.P-3 and taken his signatures. In the cross-examination he clearly stated that on the date and time of incident, he saw the applicant driving the bus. In the cross- examination of this witness, nothing adverse has come on record to disbelieve his testimony. Statement of Anirudh Singh (P.W.-3) is corroborated by Vijay (P.W.-5) and Jaal Mohammad (P.W.-6) who stated in their evidence that on the date and time of incident, the vehicle-bus was driven by accused -Salikram. Feku Singh (P.W.-7) has also stated in his evidence that Gopal Singh was dashed from backside by Minibus on the date of incident. Ashish Kumar (P.W.-8) and Dulendra Kumar Singh (P.W.-9) have also made similar statement that Gopal Singh and Jaal Mohammad were going by their side at that time Gopal Singh was dashed by Minibus. They stated that at the time of incident, accused Salikram was driving the vehicle. Indrapal Singh (P.W.-1) in his statement proved the seizure of Minibus vide (Ex.P-3.).
12. On close scrutiny of evidence available on record it is evident that prosecution examined Anirudh Singh (P.W.-3), Vijay (P.W.-5) (helper of alleged ill fated bus), Jaal Mohammad (P.W.-6), Fenku Singh (P.W.-7), in their Court statement they stated that deceased Gopal with Jaal Mohammad was going on their own side to answer natures call. The minibus driven by applicant Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.6 dashed Gopal Singh from his back side. All the above witnesses have stated that they saw the happening of accident. In cross- examination nothing adverse has come. All witnesses named the applicant to be driver.
13. The statement of Vijay (P.W.-5) (helper) that deceased was in drunken condition is not supported by the medical evidence. There is no mention of liquor found in stomach in postmortem report.
14. Negligent is not defined specifically in the Indian Penal Code. It has to be examined in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. It has to be examined in attending circumstances. It may not be always determined with the speed of vehicle, if a person is driving recklessly would amount to rash and negligent driving. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284 has observed in para 13 and 14 as under :-
13. 'Negligence' means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.7 or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence.
14. The Court has to adopt another parameter, i.e., 'reasonable care' in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian on the road and this duty attains a higher degree when the pedestrian happen to be children of tender years. It is axiomatic to say that while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others.
15. The submission of counsel for applicant that on account of non-
examination of the doctor who conducted autopsy and Investigating Officer failed to prove its case is concerned, case of prosecution is that Gopal Singh was dashed from its back is in day light, persons present clearly stated that Gopal Singh while going to answer natures call from its own side was dashed by the motor vehicle driven by applicant and he came under the wheel of the vehicle. Postmortem report is Ex.P-2. Injuries suffered by deceased is specifically mentioned. Opinion mentioned is death due to traumatic fracture of skull, eye-witnesses examined Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.8 proved the motor accident and specifically stated that deceased was dashed by the vehicle driven by applicant from back. It is not specifically argued before this Court as to what prejudice is caused to the appellant in non-examination of the Doctor and Investigating Officer. In absence of any prejudice shown and also in the facts of the case and other evidence available on record, I do not find any merit in the submission of counsel for applicant that non-examination of Investigating Officer and Doctor to be fatal.
16. In the case at hand, applicant is stated to be driver of ill fated vehicle at the time of accident by the witnesses Anirudh Singh (P.W.-3), Vijay (P.W.-5) and Ashish Kumar (P.W.-8). Applicant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. not offered any explanation nor examined any witnesses in defence. In the aforementioned facts of the case and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court that death of Gopal Singh was due to motor accident by rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle by applicant.
17. So far as the submission on the sentence is concerned, the view always to be that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. Courts have discretion to reduce the sentences awarded by the trial Court, but it should be keeping in mind the purpose of the provision for which it is enacted, imposing jail sentence to deter the person committing the offence. Hon'ble Supreme Court Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.9 in case of Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 82 observed in para -13 which reads as under :-
"13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the P.O. Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles."
18. In case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surendra Singh, Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.10 reported in (2015) 1 SCC 222, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of its earlier decision and observed at para 9, 10, 12, 14 & 15 as under :-
"9. While considering this aspect, the Supreme Court in Mahesh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1987) 3 SCC 80, remarked that, "6...........it will be a mockery of justice to permit these appellants to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the appellants would be to render the Justice system of this country suspect. The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon. When we say this, we do not ignore the need for a reformative approach in the sentencing process."
10. In Hazara Singh versus Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516, this Court has observed that :-
"10......it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict."
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.11 This Court further observed that:
"11. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases."
12. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254, observed as follows:
"99. ... The object of awarding appropriate sentence should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to (sic break the) law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
100. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but the society at large while Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.12 considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong."
14. In a recent decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bablu, after considering and following the earlier decisions, this Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which commensurate with 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, solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as awarding lesser sentence encourages any criminal and, as a result of the same, the society suffers.
15. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order reducing sentence to the period already undergone and, to avoid miscarriage of justice, this appeal is allowed restoring the sentence imposed by the trial court. The respondent is directed to surrender within two weeks from today, failing which, the trial Judge is directed to take appropriate steps for sending him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. "
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4918 Page No.13
19. The trial Court convicting the applicant under Section 304-A of I.P.C. sentenced the applicant to undergo 6 months SI and fine of Rs.500/- and in default 20 days SI, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
20. For the forgoing discussions made here-in-above, I do not find good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision being sans merit hence, it is hereby dismissed.
21. The applicant is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the remainder of the jail sentence.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram