Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Yogendra Singh Negi vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 May, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023/RJJD/015070]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 51/2023

Yogendra Singh Negi S/o Sh. Gopal Singh Negi, Aged About 59 Years, B/c Negi, R/o Behind Veterinary Hospital, Nagaur, Presently Posted As Doctor In Govt. J.l.N. Hospital, Nagaur, Dist. Nagaur. (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail, Merta, Dist. Nagaur).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Hanuman Ram S/o Sh. Jogaram, Meghwalo Ka Mohalla, Rol, Dist. Nagaur.

                                                                         ----Respondents


    For Appellant(s)             :     Mr.Rakesh Arora
    For Respondent(s)            :     Mr.Laxman Solanki
    For Complainant              :     Mr.S.K.Verma,
                                       Mr.Rahul Rajpurohit.


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                            Order

Reportable

    16/05/2023

The case of the prosecution is that at about 10-11 a.m., on

the morning of 05.01.2023, the appellant who is a doctor working

in a Government hospital, in an inebriated state, while driving his

car bearing No.RJ-07-CD-5020 caused an accident at the hospital,

where he was working, wherein the car rammed into the general

public/patients standing there resulting in on the spot death of

one Bhanwar Lal and miscarriage of a pregnant woman namely

Smt. Nazia Bano.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned

counsel submitted that alleged offence under Section 304 IPC is

[2023/RJJD/015070] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-51/2023]

not made out against the appellant and at most, it is a case of

Section 304-A IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged

incident took place when the appellant was driving the offending

car, who on entering the hospital suddenly lost control while the

car was going through a speed breaker. It was submitted that due

to rush and congestion near the hospital gate, unfortunately, the

car had plowed into the persons standing there.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant who is

serving as a doctor in a Government hospital is now near the age

of retirement. Learned counsel submitted that since investigation

in the matter has already been completed, challan has already

been filed and no recovery is due to be made from the appellant,

no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant

behind the bars. He thus implored the Court to accept the bail

application and enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned

counsel invited attention of the court towards the report of Medical

Jurist, Government Hospital, Nagaur pertaining to alcohol

consumption by the appellant and submitted that in the aforesaid

report, it had been clearly opined that the appellant had

consumed alcohol/liquor. Learned counsel submitted that on the

face of the report, the argument put forth that the appellant lost

control over the car due to rush and congestion near the hospital

gate deserves to be rejected.

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that in the incident

which took place on 05.01.2023, not only one person lost his life

[2023/RJJD/015070] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-51/2023]

and a lady suffered miscarriage but 4-5 other persons standing

near the hospital gate were also injured. To substantiate this

argument, learned counsel took the Court to the charge sheet

submitted by the investigating agency on 04.03.2023. He thus

implored the Court not to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State Through PS

Lodhi Colony, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Nanda reported in 2012

8 SCC 450 while dealing with the menace of drunken driving

observed as under:

"86. Drunken driving has become a menace to our society. Every day drunken driving results in accidents and several human lives are lost, pedestrians in many of our cities are not safe. Late night parties among urban elite have now become a way of life followed by drunken driving. Alcohol consumption impairs consciousness and vision and it becomes impossible to judge accurately how far away the objects are . When depth perception deteriorates, eye muscles lose their precision causing inability to focus on the objects. Further, in more unfavourable conditions like fog, mist, rain etc., whether it is night or day, it can reduce the visibility of an object to the point of being below the limit of discernibility. In short, alcohol leads to loss of coordination, poor judgment, slowing down of reflexes and distortion of vision.

(Emphasis supplied)

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Alister Anthony

Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648,

held as under:

"41. Rash and negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result occurs, may be held

[2023/RJJD/015070] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-51/2023]

guilty not only of the act but also of the result. As a matter of law in view of the provisions of IPC, the cases which fall within the last clause of Section 299 but not within clause "Fourthly" of Section 300 may cover the cases of rash and negligent act done with the knowledge of the likelihood of dangerous consequences and may entail punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC. Section 304-A IPC takes out its ambit the cases of death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act amounting to culpable homicide of either description"

(Emphasis supplied)

Having gone through FIR, charge sheet and medical report

dated 05.01.02023, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to a

prima facie conclusion that the appellant who is doctor by

profession was well aware of the consequences of driving the car

in inebriated state under the influence of liquor. The petitioner in

the morning hours, drove his car after consuming alcohol causing

an accident which resulted in death of a person, a pregnant

woman suffering miscarriage coupled with injuries to several

persons/patients near the hospital gate.

The argument with regard to vehicle getting imbalanced due

to rush and congestion around the hospital gate cannot be

appreciated at this stage especially when the matter is yet to be

tried by the competent criminal court so also the statement of

complainant is yet to be recorded.

In the present case, the appellant who is working as a doctor

in a Government hospital, saddled with the moral obligation of

providing treatment to ailing patients has despite being aware of

ill effects of drunken driving, in an inebriated state driven his car

on a highly congested road inside the hospital in which he worked,

resulting in death of a person, a pregnant woman's miscarriage

and injuries to 4-5 other persons.