Rajasthan High Court
Pappu @ Shehjad vs State on 28 February, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (1 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 382/2005
Pappu @ Shehjad son of Najir Mohd., R/o Pancholas, Police
Station Ravanjana Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. At present
in District Jail, Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Hemand Singh
Mr. Arslaan Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan- PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
28/02/2024
1. The present criminal revision petition is preferred against the
judgment dated 05.04.2005 passed by learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Appeal
No.36/2003 whereby, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 13.06.2003 passed by learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur in Regular Criminal Case No.67/2000
whereby, the accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Offence under Imprisonment Fine Sentence in
Section default of fine
279 of IPC 03 Months' S.I. -- --
337 of IPC 06 Months' S.I. -- --
338 of IPC 01 Year S.I. -- --
304A of IPC 01 Year S.I. -- --
379 of IPC 01 Year S.I. -- --
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (2 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that
findings of the learned Courts below are against the facts and
material on record. The Courts below have erred in law in placing
reliance on the statement of PW-6 Mohan Lal. The accused-
petitioner has come with a specific defence that Mohan Lal was
driving the vehicle at the relevant time and he did not possess the
licence. Therefore, Mohan Lal in connivance with the owner of the
motorcycle, levelled allegations against the accused-petitioner of
driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Mohan Lal is only witness
and there is no other witness of the incident to corroborate the
statement of Mohan Lal. PW-6 Mohan Lal in the cross-examination
has stated that he did not know, how the accident occurred,
therefore, there is no evidence on record to prove that at the
relevant time, the accused-petitioner was driving the vehicle
rashly and negligently.
3. In defence of the evidence to this effect, conviction of
accused-petitioner cannot be sustained for offence under Section
304A of the IPC. He further submits that accused-petitioner was
also convicted under Section 379 of the IPC and PW-9 Gajendra
has specifically stated that the said motorcycle was handed over
to Nijam, brother of the accused-petitioner for repairing. Therefore,
ingredients under Section 379 of the IPC are not meted out.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further submits
that as per the site plan in the instant case, Latur (deceased)
himself was negligent and he collided with the motorcycle, as a
result, accused-petitioner, PW-6 Mohan Lal and Latur received the
injuries. The injury reports of the three persons go a long way to
show that motorcycle was not collided with the cycle of Latur and
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (3 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
it was Latur who collided with the motorcycle. The findings of the
learned Courts below are based on conjectures and surmises and,
therefore, liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in alternative
prays that sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner may be
substituted with the period already undergone by him and he may
be released. He places reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Paul George Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2008) 4
Supreme Court Cases 185
(ii) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1332/2003,
Ramchandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
(iii) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.525 and
526/2008, Mehboob Khan Vs. State
(iv) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.109/2004,
Taranjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supports the judgment
passed by the Courts below and opposes reduction in sentence. He
places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur in Criminal
Appeal No.844 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl) No.2984 of 2018.
7. Before dealing with the revision petition, it is desirable to
point out the factual matrix of the case, which are as under:-
7.1. That on 28.02.2000, PW-1 Jagdish lodged a written report
(Exhibit P-1) at Police Station Ravanjana Doongar alleging that at
about 10:00 am in the morning, after selling vegetables, Latur son
of Heeralal Kir was coming from Khijuri. Pappu son of Najir was on
the motorcycle and Mohan Lal was sitting on the rear seat. The
motorcycle collided with the cycle, resulting into death of Latur,
Pappu and Mohan Lal also sustained injuries.
7.2. On receipt of the above report, the First Information Report
No.27/2000 was registered at Police Station Ravanjana Doongar for
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (4 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A and 379 of IPC
and under Sections 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act.
7.3. After investigation, police filed challan against the accused-
petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A and
379 of IPC and under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act and
charges were framed, the accused-petitioner denied the charge
and after commencement of trial, prosecution examined 16
witnesses.
7.4. The statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the parties, accused-
petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Sections 3/181 of
the Motor Vehicles Act and convicted under Sections 279, 337,
338, 304A and 379 of IPC.
8. It is a settled law that the scope of interference with the
concurrent findings of facts in criminal revision is very limited. If,
the findings of the Courts below are totally perverse, then only,
the revisional Court can interfere with the findings and review the
evidence again.
9. In the present matter, learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner submits that both the Courts below erred in convicting
the accused-petitioner solely on the testimony of PW-6 Mohan Lal
whereas, Mohan Lal in his cross-examination has specifically
stated that he could not see the accident.
10. There is no gain-saying to the fact that the questioned
motorcycle met with an accident and hit the cyclist Latur, resulting
into his death and accused-petitioner and PW-6 Mohan Lal also
sustained simple and grievous injuries.
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (5 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
11. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner vehemently
submits that at the time of accident, accused-petitioner was not
driving the vehicle and it was Mohan Lal who committed the
accident and Police in connivance with Mohan Lal implicated the
present accused-petitioner.
12. Utmost question before the Court is that whether the
accused-petitioner was driving the questioned vehicle and due to
his rash and negligent driving, deceased Latur died at the spot and
PW-6 Mohan Lal sustained simple and grievous injuries.
13. As already stated, the occurrence of accident itself is not in
dispute and it is also undisputed that due to an accident, Latur lost
his life and Mohan Lal also suffered simple and grievous injuries.
14. To prove the facts of the present case, prosecution relies
upon the following witnesses:-
(i) PW-1 Jagdish
(ii) PW-2 Arjun
(iii) PW-6 Mohan Lal
(iv) PW-7 Suraj
(v) PW-8 Rameshwar Prasad
(vi) PW-9 Gajendra Kumar
(vii) PW-10 Sher Singh
(viii) PW-12 Moolchand
(ix) PW-14 Rajeshwar
(x) PW-15 Murari Lal
(xi) PW-16 Ram Dayal (Investigating Officer)
15. The accused-petitioner has come up with a specific defence
that at the time of occurrence, PW-6 Mohan Lal was driving the
vehicle and he has been falsely implicated in the case.
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (6 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
16. PW-7 Suraj and PW-12 Moolchand have turned hostile and
not supported the prosecution story.
17. PW-12 Moolchand in his cross-examination has denied that
he saw the accident. Similarly, PW-7 Suraj has also denied that any
accident took place before me.
18. PW-6 Mohan Lal is the injured in the present case who
deposes in examination-in-chief that accused-petitioner Pappu
took the motorcycle from his brother Nijam's shop and he also
accompanied him as a pillion rider. He further states that accused-
petitioner after placing small piece of wooden stick in the key
whole, started the motorcycle and was driving the motorcycle
waiving at high speed and despite cautioning, did not give any
heed to his alarm, eventually, resulting in collusion with the cyclist
Latur, resulting into his death. After collusion, he also fell down
from the motorcycle and sustained injuries on his head and back.
In his cross-examination, he denies the fact that he was driving the
motorcycle. He also denies the fact that Gajendra Singh agreed to
sell his motorcycle to him.
19. PW-1 Jagdish who is complainant in the present matter,
deposes that Hans Raj reported to him that Pappu, while driving
the motorcycle met with an accident with cycle drove by Latur,
resulting in Latur's death. He also states that Pappu and Mohan Lal
also suffered injuries. He further states that when he reached at
the spot, Arjun and Hari were present and the dead body of Latur
was lying beside the questioned motorcycle and cycle. Afterward,
he lodged a report (Exhibit P-1) in the concerned Police Station. He
also states that after lodging the FIR, Police officials arrived at the
spot.
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (7 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
20. In his relevant cross-examination, PW-1 Jagdish refutes the
defence put forth by the defence that motorcycle was being driven
by Mohan Lal.
21. From his statement, it appears that witness was not present
at the time of occurrence and he reached after the accident. On
cross-examining, he has admitted that accident did not take place
before him but denies the fact that Mohan Lal was driving the said
vehicle.
22. PW-2 Arjun is also not an eye-witness and his evidence is
relevant only up to the extent that he heard that Pappu after
driving the motorcycle, caused death of Latur, Pappu and Mohan
Lal also sustained injuries. In his relevant cross-examination, he
also reiterated the fact that Pappu was driving the motorcycle.
23. PW-8 Rameshwar Prasad, who is the owner of the
motorcycle, in his statement states that after receiving the notice
under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Exhibit P-10), he
replied at A to B portion, indicating the fact that motorcycle is in
possession of his son Gajendra Kumar. In cross-examination, he
shows his ignorance regarding accident occurred with the
motorcycle.
24. PW-9 Gajendra Kumar is son of PW-8 Rameshwar Prasad and
in his statement, he narrates that on 28.02.2000, he parked his
motorcycle at Nijam's shop and at about 12:00 am, when he
returned from his duty, he did not find the vehicle. After enquiring,
he could not trace his motorcycle and thereafter, he instituted a
report (Exhibit P-11) in the concerned Police Station. He also states
that, later on, he came to know that Pappu while driving
motorcycle met with an accident and Mohan Lal was
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (8 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
accompanying him at rear seat. In his cross-examination, he
refutes that he agreed to sell his motorcycle to injured Mohan Lal.
25. PW-10 Sher Singh who is Mechanical Inspector, examined the
questioned vehicle and found that left handle of motorcycle was
damaged and left indicator was not workable. He also states that
in the start switch, a piece of wooden stick was placed. The
witness also states that he prepared the Mechanical Report
(Exhibit P-10), which bears his signature.
26. PW-13 Chander Shekhar is photographer and he has
photographed the pictures at the place of accident. He states that
Exhibit P-16 to Exhibit P-19 were collected by him.
27. PW-14 Rajeshwar is witness of site plan and states that site
plan (Exhibit P-20) was prepared before him and it bears his
signature.
28. Similarly, PW-15 Murari Lal is also witness of site plan
(Exhibit P-20) and he also states that site plan (Exhibit P-20) bears
his signature.
29. PW-16 Ram Dayal is Investigating Officer and in his
examination-in-chief, he states that after lodging the FIR (Exhibit
P-2), he went to the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan
and also directed to click the photographs. The motorcycle was
taken in possession. He also states that during investigation, he
recorded the statement of witnesses Jagdish, Arjul Lal, Hari Mohan,
Mohan Lal, Soorajmal, Moolchand and Gajendra Kumar. He also
states that during investigation, motorcycle was examined by the
Mechanical Inspector and report (Exhibit P-10) was prepared by
him. After investigation, he has submitted the charge-sheet
against the accused-petitioner. In cross-examination, he denies the
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (9 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
fact that Pappu was falsely implicated and was not driving the
motorcycle at the relevant time. The entire above evidence shows
that at the time of accident, accused-petitioner was driving the
vehicle.
30. From the oral evidence of PW-6 Mohan Lal, it is confirmed
that the accused-petitioner was driving the questioned vehicle.
The plea of the accused-petitioner that Mohan Lal was driving the
motorcycle and he has implicated him, gets undermine by
statement of PW-1 Jagdish, PW-2 Arjun and PW-9 Gajendra Singh.
All these witnesses in unequivocal terms have repudiated the
defence plea that Mohan Lal was driving the vehicle.
31. From the evidence, PW-9, it is obvious that the said
motorcycle was in possession of the witness and he parked his
vehicle at the shop of accused-petitioner's brother Nijam. In cross-
examination, he firmly disavows the defence plea that he agreed
to sell the motorcycle to Mohan Lal.
32. The accused-petitioner tried to raise the specific defence by
filing a written complaint (Exhibit D-3) after one month of the
incident, but was not able to back up it through any cogent
evidence.
33. The circumstances just after the incident put forth through
witnesses PW-1 Jagdish, PW-2 Arjun and PW-9 Gajrndra Kumar
reinforce the prosecution's story that the accused-petitioner was
driving the questioned motorcycle. The veracity of PW-6 Mohan
Lal, independent witnesses (PW-1 Jagdish) and PW-2 Arjun has
remained un-impeached. There is no conceivable testimony to
distrust the testimony of PW-6 Mohan Lal.
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (10 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
34. The learned trial Court and Appellate Court after appreciating
the entire evidence available on record have rightly convicted and
sentenced the accused-petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338
and 304A of IPC
35. As far as offence under Section 379 of the IPC is concerned,
the prosecution is not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
accused-petitioner took the vehicle with an dishonest intention. It
appears from the evidence that accused-petitioner took the
motorcycle only for his thrill. Therefore, the offence under Section
379 of the IPC is not made out against the present accused-
petitioner. Hence, the accused-petitioner is acquitted under
Section 379 of the IPC.
36. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in alternative
prays for reduction of sentence of accused-petitioner and places
reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Paul
George Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases
185 and judgments passed by this court in S.B. Criminal Revision
Petition No.1332/2003, Ramchandra Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition Nos.525 and 526/2008, Mehboob Khan
Vs. State and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.109/2004,
Taranjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that accused-petitioner has suffered
sentence of 01 month 22 days, therefore, he may be given benefit
of sentence already undergone.
37. In the matters of Ramchandra Vs. State of Rajasthan,
Mehboob Khan Vs. State and Taranjeet Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan (supra), the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court reduced
the sentence of the petitioners as already undergone.
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (11 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
38. In case of Paul George Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (supra), the
facts of the case were entirely different. The accused was Head
Constable at the relevant time while discharging official duty,
caused accident, resulting in a death and injuries to other. The
Hon'ble Apex Court after taking into consideration that the
accused-petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of
his conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and also
taking note that litigation was pending for 20 years, enlarged the
accused under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
39. Learned Public Prosecutor places reliance on judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur
(Supra) rendered in Criminal Appeal No.844/2023 SLP (Criminal)
No.2984 of 2018 dated 28.03.2023.
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs.
Dil Bahadur (Supra) after referring the judgment of State of M.P.
Vs. Bablu 2014 (9) SCC 281 held as under:-
"the prime objective of criminal law is the
imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment
which is necessary with the 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, the solemn duty of the Court
to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence
as awarding the lesser sentence encourages any
[2024:RJ-JP:8343] (12 of 12) [CRLR-382/2005]
criminal and as a result of the same, the society
suffers."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs.
Dil Bahadur set aside the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court whereby, Hon'ble High Court upheld the conviction of
respondent under Section 304A of the IPC and reduced the
sentence from two years to eight months, subject to prior deposit
of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to be paid to family/legal
heirs of the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that
showing undue sympathy to the accused is unsustainable.
41. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the view
that sentence awarded to accused-petitioner under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304A of the IPC commensurate with the offence
committed and there is no cogent reasons for the Court to reduce
the sentence of the accused-petitioner.
42. In view of the above, the criminal revision petition of the
accused-petitioner is partly allowed. The order passed by the
learned trial court is modified to the extent that accused-petitioner
is acquitted from the charges under Section 379 of the IPC and the
sentences awarded to the accused-petitioner under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304A of the IPC are hereby affirmed. The accused-
petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties are forfeited. He is
directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the
concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of his sentences.
43. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the
learned Courts below be sent back forthwith.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
Rahul Joshi
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
