[2025:RJ-JP:16750] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1003/2005 Suresh Chand son of Shri Bhanwar Lal, resident of Kali Pahadi, Tehsil Behror, Dist. Alwar (At present in sub-jail, Behror) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajatshan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/03/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner aggrieved from dismissal of criminal appeal No.43/2005 (30/2004) passed by leaned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, District Alwar whereby judgment of conviction and sentence 28.09.2004 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror under sections 279 and 304A IPC was affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon judgment in case of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam Vs. State of Andra Pradesh (2000) 7 SCC 72, State of Karnataka Vs. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493 and Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs. State of Maharashtra (1972) 4 SCC 758 submitted that if a passenger or pedestrian suddenly came on road and was hit by a moving vehicle then such an act cannot be considered as a rash and negligent driving. He further [2025:RJ-JP:16750] (2 of 10) [CRLR-1003/2005] submitted that there has to be an evidence that the driver of moving vehicle was driving in most careless and negligent manner having no control over the vehicle and without fault of injured/deceased has dashed him. He further submitted that the prosecution or eyewitness have to prove that the driver of vehicle was driving rash and negligently and deliberately hit the deceased. He further submitted that in the instant case the deceased was crossing National Highway in most negligent manner and suddenly came in front of a moving vehicle which resulted into said accident. He further referred the site plan and evidence and submitted that just after the accident the driver of vehicle had stopped the vehicle which clearly indicate that speed of vehicle was within controllable limit and vehicle was within control of driver. He further referred the evidence and submitted that vehicle was stopped 10 feet ahead of the point of accident, which clearly indicated that the vehicle was not driven in rash and negligent manner. He also referred the statement of PW-6 Krishnaiya and submitted that there is no evidence about identification and deployment of petitioner as driver on offending vehicle. He further referred the evidence of eyewitness and submitted that none of them had supported the case of prosecution. He further referred the site plan exhibit P2 and submitted that the accident was not a result of negligent and rash driving of driver of vehicle and in such circumstances, he cannot be held responsible for the accident on National Highway. At last, he submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:16750] (3 of 10) [CRLR-1003/2005] petitioner is facing trial and criminal proceedings since 1998 and period is more than 27 years and he also remained in custody for some time therefore a lenient approach be adopted against him and either the benefit of probation be granted or be released on period of sentence already undergone by him. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report Ex.P-1 lodged by Rameshwar (PW-1) about accident from Armada Jeep No. HR26E9942 resulting in death of Mahaveer Singh, FIR No. 72/1998 was registered at P.S. Shahjahanpur, Dist. Alwar. After investigation police has filed chargesheet against petitioner accused under sections 279 and 304A IPC. During trial 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 7 documents were exhibited. The petitioner accused was convicted under section 279 and 304A IPC and further sentence to undergo imprisonment of 6 months and one year respectively with fine. When appeal was preferred same was dismissed by learned appellate court. 6. In case of Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that deceased was suddenly crossing the road from West to east without taking note of approaching vehicle and there was every possibility of dashing against the bus without driver became [2025:RJ-JP:16750] (4 of 10) [CRLR-1003/2005] aware about his crossing. In case of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish (Supra) the trial court and the appellate court has held that the vehicle was driven at high speed but no specific finding was recorded. There was no evidence on record to establish negligence or rashness in driving the truck on part of respondent therefore the High Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused. 7. In case of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam Vs. State of Andra Pradesh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if a passenger fell down from bus while boarding it then same is not sufficient to presume negligence on part of driver. It was held that it must be proved that driver suddenly moved the bus. A rash and negligent driving preliminary means an over hasty act done without due care and caution. 8. On the basis of aforesaid principles as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court we are considering the evidence and material on record. A rash driving refers an act of driving a vehicle in a reckless or irresponsible manner that endangers human life or is likely to cause injury to any person. The act of rash driving includes the act of over speed racing, overtaking, ignoring traffic signals, driving in intoxicated state and also in careless manner etc. The prosecution has to establish that:- (i) The accused drive vehicle on any pathway/road, (ii) The vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, [2025:RJ-JP:16750] (5 of 10) [CRLR-1003/2005] (iii) By the act it endangered the human life or caused harm to any other person. 9. In case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284=AIR 2012 SC 2986 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact that can’t be comprehended or viewed separately. It must be examined in light of the attending circumstances. 10. ‘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 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. 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 he is driving a vehicle in any thickly populated area. 11. In case of Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that [2025:RJ-JP:16750] (6 of 10) [CRLR-1003/2005] professional drivers should remind themselves of the general consequences of any movement or laxity or inadvertence while operating a vehicle. It is imperative that they did not take any chance or assume that their reckless driving will not result in an accident or any accident will not lead to loss of human life. Furthermore, driver should not assume that even if death occurs they will not be convicted of those offence or that they will receive lenient sentence. The observation clearly highlights the need for professional drivers who exercise at most caution and responsibility while driving and not causing harm and damage to anyone. 12. A perusal of report exhibit P1 submitted by Rameshwar examined as PW-1 indicate that with Co-passengers in vehicle No.MP09D4800 they were going from Jaipur to Haridwar but stopped 1km ahead of Shahjahanpur to take break for tea but when Mahaveer Singh, after nature’s call was returning then a Jeep HR20E9942 has dashed him. In his evidence PW-1 has identified the petitioner accused and in cross examination he admitted that the accident is result of negligence adopted by both i.e. deceased and present petitioner. PW-1 has explained that if vehicle was driven at slow speed then the accident would be avoided. PW-1 In his examination in chief has made it clear that speed of vehicle was 80-90 kmph but it was moving in uncontrollable mode. Another eyewitness PW-2 Ram Avtar is also a co-passenger and he has also identified the petitioner and stated that the vehicle was in high speed. PW-3 Devaram is also an [2025:RJ-JP:16750] (7 of 10) [CRLR-1003/2005] eyewitness and he supported evidence of PW1, and identified petitioner. The admission of PW-3 clearly indicated that vehicle was stopped 10 step ahead from the point of accident. PW-5 Dr. Shiv Narayan conducted post mortem report exhibited as exhibit P6. PW-4 Hukam Chand related to panchnama of dead body. PW-6 Krishnaiya was in-charge of a company who owns the vehicle and before being declared as hostile he stated that petitioner is working as driver in his company. The investigating officer was not examined by prosecution but site plan exhibit P2 was exhibited in evidence by PW-1 and PW-2 and learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon site plan. 13. Here in this case the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, all three witnesses as their presence is natural one who were accompanying deceased, have identified the petitioner as the person who was driving the vehicle. The evidence of PW-6 suggest that the petitioner is working in their company though PW-6 has turned hostile on certain points but in view of evidence of eye-witness PW-1 to PW-3, it is established that petitioner accused is the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 14. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 clearly stated and suggested that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner by petitioner accused, though one of the witness has suggested that negligence was on part of both i.e deceased and petitioner whereas one witness has suggested that after 10 steps the vehicle has stopped. We have considered the site [2025:RJ-JP:16750] (8 of 10) [CRLR-1003/2005] plan exhibit P2. It indicated that the deceased along with Co passengers were going to haridwar, which means they were travelling from North to South and for nature's call and tea they stopped at one place and the deceased was crossing the road. The movement of vehicle is shown in site plan and moreover after accident at mark A the deceased fell on mark B. The distance is not mentioned in site plan but it is apparent that when vehicle was moving on road then there was sufficient space on road, available for the vehicle to comfortably ply on road. 15. Having considered the evidence, the deceased has suffered anti-mortem injuries and the post mortem report suggests that deceased was brought in emergency. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and site plan exhibit P2 clearly indicated movement of petitioner accused in the incident. The movement of vehicle is established from the evidence recorded before the trial court. The accused has not submitted any clarification to contradict the claim of prosecution. The incident is of broad day light and there was proper visibility on road. 16. Here in this case as per evidence of one of the witness the deceased and the petitioner accused both were responsible for accident, which means the it is a case of contributory negligence. The contributory negligence is a doctrine which cast a duty upon the petitioner accused to take reasonable care while driving the vehicle on road assuming the fact that deceased was negligently crossing the road and without [2025:RJ-JP:16750] (9 of 10) [CRLR-1003/2005] noticing the speedy vehicle driven by petitioner accused. The petitioner accused was at a high speed and in broad daylight the accident took place therefore the responsibility lies upon him to show that all reasonable care and caution was adopted by him. Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act cast a duty upon a person to led evidence and explain his conduct but here in this Case No explanation whatsoever was offered by the petitioner. 17. Having considered the entire material on record and also the legal position I'm of considered view that petitioner accused has driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and he has not exercised control over the vehicle while seeing the presence of deceased when he was crossing the road in broad daylight. Thus the petitioner accused is responsible for rash and negligent driving and largely he contributed in the accident. No sufficient material is available on record to discharge the petitioner from the charge and set aside the judgments recorded by the courts below. 18. The petitioner is facing criminal proceedings since April 1998 but it is a case of rash and negligent driving wherein a person has lost his life. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana (supra) has already considered the grounds of leniency in cases of rash and negligent driving and I am of considered view that this is not a fit case wherein leniency be adopted after conviction under sections 279 and 304A IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:16750] (10 of 10) [CRLR-1003/2005] 19. In view of discussion made here in above instant revision petition preferred by petitioner is hereby dismissed and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.09.2004 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Behror affirmed in criminal appeal No.43/2005 (30/2004) by leaned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, Alwar is hereby affirmed. 20. The petitioner accused is directed to surrender before the trial court and in case he fails to surrender, the trial court is directed to take steps to ensure that petitioner accused is summoned to serve the sentence. 21. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /171