Rajasthan High Court

Manohari vs State on 21 December, 2023

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2023:RJ-JP:39554]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 264/2005

Manohari S/o Shri Bhonrya R/o Village Chainpur, Police Station
Mansalpur, District Karauli
(Accused in District Jail, Karauli)
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                           Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
                                                                         ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)                 :    Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)                 :    Mr. S.S. Mehla, PP



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                           Order

RESERVED ON                  :    13/12/2023
PRONOUNCED ON :                        /12/2023

1. The instant revision petition is filed under Section 397 read

with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated

15.03.2005, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karauli in

Criminal Appeal No.03/2002 whereby while setting aside the

appeal, the order of conviction dated 13.12.2001 passed by the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Criminal Case No. 452/1999

was upheld.

2. The undisputed and ineluctable facts of the instant revision,

are briefly noted herein-under:-

2.1. That on 19.06.1999, the complainant-Sh. Ramkesh Meena

lodged a written report at Police Station, Karauli regarding an

accident stated to have occurred on 18.06.1999.

[2023:RJ-JP:39554] (2 of 8) [CRLR-264/2005]

2.2. That on the basis of the said written report, the police

registered a criminal case vide F.I.R. No. 376/1999 for offence

under Section 304-A of IPC and subsequently, proceeded with the

investigation.

2.3. That the police after conclusion of the investigation,

submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence

under Section 304-A of IPC. Furthermore, after filing of the said

charge-sheet, the learned trial court read over the substance of

the charge for the aforementioned offence to the petitioner.

Consequently, the petitioner denied the charges and demanded to

be tried.

2.4. That the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and

in documentary evidence, exhibited certain documents in support

of their case. After the completion of the prosecution evidence,

the learned trial court recorded the statement of the petitioner

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the petitioner denied the

prosecution's narration, claiming it to be fabricated. It is to be

noted that no defense witness was examined.

2.5. That pursuant to the conclusion of the final arguments, vide

impugned judgment dated 13.12.2001, the petitioner was

convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to

one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in

default of the fine thereof, further imprisonment of one month was

awarded.

2.6. That being aggrieved, the petitioner appealed against the

judgement dated 13.12.2001 before the District and Sessions

[2023:RJ-JP:39554] (3 of 8) [CRLR-264/2005]

Judge, Karauli. However, vide impugned order dated 15.03.2005,

the appeal so preferred was rejected and the order of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate dated 13.12.2001 whereby the petitioner was

convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, was upheld.

2.7. Being further aggrieved of the orders impugned dated

15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001, the petitioner has preferred the

instant revision petition.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

impugned judgments dated 15.03.2005 and 13.12.2001 are

legally unsustainable, being contrary to the provisions of the law

as well as the facts on record. In support of the said claim,

learned counsel submitted that the offence under Section 304-A is

not made out against the petitioner beyond the realm of

reasonable doubt, especially considering the several infirmities

and contradictions in the statements tendered by the prosecution

witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution failed

to prove the fact that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly

and/or on high speed. Despite the same, the learned courts below,

solely on a consideration of the fact that the vehicle was being

driven rashly on a high speed, have convicted the petitioner for

the offence under Section 304-A. In this regard, it was contended

that mere driving of a vehicle at a high speed cannot be equated

with the said driving being negligent and/or rash. Therefore, by

placing reliance upon the statements tendered by the petitioner

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., learned counsel reiterated the claim

of innocence of the petitioner and prayed for the quashing and

[2023:RJ-JP:39554] (4 of 8) [CRLR-264/2005]

setting aside of the orders impugned dated 15.03.2005 and

13.12.2001.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently prayed

for the dismissal of the instant revision petition, claiming the

orders impugned to have been passed in consonance with the

settled position of the law, after having taken into consideration

the evidence on record.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused

through the record of the instant petition.

6. It is trite law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section

397 of Cr.P.C, the Court must bear in mind the object of the

provisions of revision which is to set right a patent defect or an

error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error

and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders

which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration

and appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional Jurisdiction

can only be invoked where the decisions under challenge are

grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of

law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material

evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or

perversely. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum

of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Amit Kapoor vs.

Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460.

7. For ready reference, the operative extract of the order

impugned dated 15.03.2005, necessary for discerning the

challenge so raised thereto, is reproduced and noted herein-

under:-

[2023:RJ-JP:39554] (5 of 8) [CRLR-264/2005]

"5- loZizFke rks fopkjd U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds vfHkHkk"kd ds bl rdZ ds lUnHkZ esa ns[kuk gS fd D;k tks xokg vfHk;kstu i{k ds }kjk ?kVuk ds p{;qn'khZ is'k fd;s x;s gSa og okLro esa p{;qn'khZ lk{kh Fks vFkok ckn esa cuk;s gq;s xokg gSaA vDr fo"k; esa ?kVuk dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih- 3 ?kVuk ds rqjUr cknh gh 19-6-1999 dks 9-25 ,-,e- ij ntZ djok nh x;h gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih-3 esa ? kVuk ds le; j?kqoj eh.kk] /kuohj eh.kk] txeksgu ljiap o Jhpj.k dh ekStwnxh ?kVuk ns[kus okyksa esa crk;h x;h gSaA mDr xokgu esa ih-M-5 xokg Jhpj.k dks gk¡ykfd vfHk;kstu i{k us i{knzksgh djkj fd;k gS] rFkkfi mlus vius c;ku esa euksgjh yky vihykFkhZ ds }kjk thi dks pyk;k tkuk vkSj mldk uEcj 5661 crk;k gSA vU; xokg ih-M-1 txeksgu] ih-M- 2 /kuohj] ih-M- 3 j?kqoj] ih-M- 4 jkeds'k vfHk;ksxh lHkh us vius c;kuksa esa ?kVuk ds le; iz'uxr thi dks vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds }kjk gh pyk;k tkuk crk;k gS rFkk lHkh us viuh lk{; esa bl rF; dks O;Dr fd;k gS fd thi dks rsth ls pykdj dYyw ds Vddj ekj nh vkSj bu lHkh us ekSds ij gh vDdj yxus ds ckn ejuk crk;k gSA vr% ftu xokgku dh ekStwnxh ?kVuk ds le; izn'kZ ih- 3 izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa crk;h x;h gS mu lHkh us ?kVuk dh iqf"V vius U;k;ky; ds le{k c;kuksa esa dh gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; us mijksDr lHkh xokgku dh lk{; dk foLr`r foospu fd;k gSA vr% fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa bu xokgku dks ckn esa cuk;s tkus okys xokg ugha dgk tk ldrk D;ksafd mijksDr xokgku dh ftjg esa Hkh ,sls dFku O;Dr ugha gq;s gSa tks fd mudh lk{; dks vfo'oluh; cukrs gksaA ih-M-7 Mk0 n'kjFk flag us vius c;ku esa dYyw iq= cq/kjke ds 'ko dk ijh{k.k djuk vkSj mlds 'kjhj ij e`R;q iwoZ dh dqUn vkys ls dkfjr 19 pksVksa dk o.kZu fd;k gS rFkk muds vuqlkj ckyd dh e`R;q vkUrfjd jDr L=ko o flj esa xEHkhj pksV o 'kkWd ds dj.k gq;h Fkh vkSj muds }kjk izn'kZ ih- 7 iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ rS;kj dh x;hA vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ih-M- 8 jkeukFk flag lk{; esa is'k gqvk ftUgksausa dYyw dk iapukek yk'k izn'kZ ih- 1 cuk;k] ?kVukLFky dk fujh{k.k dj QnZ izn'kZ ih- 2 cu;h rFkk /kkjk 133 ,e-oh- ,DV ds uksfVl esa Hkh thi pkyd euksgjh yky gh ekSds ij crk;k x;k A 6- fo}ku vfHkHk"kd vihykFkhZ dk ,d rdZ ;g Hkh jgk gS fd fdlh Hkh xokg us ;g ugha crk;k gS fd okgu dh D;k LihM FkhA mDr fo"k; esa esjs erkuqlkj tks Hkh xokg gLrxr izdj.k esa is'k gqvk gS og lHkh xzkeh.k ifjos'k ls lEcU/k j[krs gSa rFkk okgu dh LihM fdyksehVj esa D;k jgh gksxh ;g vko';d ugha gS fd dksbZ O;fDr fuf'pr :i ls crk lds ysfdu tc ckgu vR;f/kd rsth ls py jgk gks rks mls ;gh dgk tk;sxk fd okgu dkQh rsth ls py jgk Fkk rFkk tgk¡ rd okgu dks mis{kk ls o ykijokgh ls pykus dk iz'u gS bl fo"k; esa uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ ih-2 izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ,Dl Lfkku ij Vddj gksuk crk;k gS vkSj mlds fy;s Li"V :i ls uD'kk ekSdk dks ns[kus ls gh tkfgj gksrk gS fd thi pkyd us thi dks jksM lkbZM ij ykijokgh o xQyr ls pykrs gq;s dPph iVjh ij py jgs yMds dYyw ds Vddj ekjh gSA uD'kk ekSdk ls gh thi pkyd dh mis{kk o ykijokgh ls okgu dks pyk;k tkuk Li"V gks jgk gSA /kkjk 304&, Hkk0na0la0 dk tqeZ ml fLFkfr esa Hkh izekf.kr ekuk tkrk gS fd tcfr okgu dks mis{kk o ykijokgh ls pyk;k tkosA vfHk;kstu lk{; ls ;g Hkh tkfgj gqvk gS fd ekSds ij gh vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks idM fy;k x;k FkkA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; esa uD'kk ekSds dk foLr`r foospu fd;k gSA "

8. Upon a considered perusal of the order impugned dated

15.03.2005 as well as the order dated 13.12.2001, this Court

[2023:RJ-JP:39554] (6 of 8) [CRLR-264/2005]

deems it to dismiss the instant revision petition, on the following

grounds read cumulatively:-

8.1. That while passing the orders impugned, the learned

appellate court as well as the trial court, duly took into account

the statements tendered by the eye-witnesses to the incident in

question, namely Sh. Raghuveer Meena, Sh. Dhanveer Meena ,

Sh. Jagmohan Sarpanch and Sh. Sricharan. It is noted that the

said eye-witnesses have duly recognized/identified the vehicle

involved belonging to the petitioner along with identifying its

driver to be the petitioner as well.

8.2. That the possibility of the eye-witnesses being planted has

also been considered by the court below, and in this regard it is

noted that despite the fact that Sh. Sricharan was declared hostile

by the prosecution itself, he has categorically identified the vehicle

to be of the petitioner's as well as the driver at the time of the

incident to be, the petitioner-Manohari.

8.3. That in the statements so tendered by the eye-witnesses,

the fact of the vehicle being driven at a precariously high speed

whilst being rash and/or negligent has also been explicitly

mentioned. Moreover, the said statements of the eye-witnesses,

when subject to cross-examination during trial, remained

consistent, thereby precluding the speculation qua the eye-

witnesses being planted/fabricated.

8.4. That the fact that the vehicle was being driven

negligently/rashly is further corroborated by the fact that as per

the site map (Exhibit P-2), the accident is shown to have occurred

[2023:RJ-JP:39554] (7 of 8) [CRLR-264/2005]

on the unpaved track, next to the road where the pedestrians

walk.

8.5. That as per the statements tendered by Dr. Dashrath Singh,

who prepared the Post-Mortem Report, a total of 19 injuries were

reflected on the person of the deceased-victim. The reason of

death was narrated as severe internal bleeding caused by an

aggravated/serious head injury and shock to the body. In this