[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chandan Singh vs State on 15 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:48710]
      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 698/2009

Chandan Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, aged about 27 years,
resident of Delwara, District Rajasamand.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


 For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Ravindra Singh
 For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP


              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 15.09.2025

2. Date on which the judgment was reserved. 15.09.2025

3. Whether the full judgment or only operative Full part is pronounced.

4. Date of Pronouncement 15.12.2025

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401

Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.06.2009

passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Nathdwara,

District Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2007, whereby the

judgment dated 18.09.2007 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, in Criminal

Original Case No. 65/2005 was upheld. The petitioner was

convicted and sentenced vide order dated 18.09.2007 as below:

Conviction for offences under Sentences Sections:

279 IPC 3 months' S.I and a fine of Rs.

500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' S.I. 304-A IPC 2 years' S.I and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:31:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48710] (2 of 9) [CRLR-698/2009]

payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's S.I.

2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that on 11.05.2005 at

around 6:45 PM, the petitioner was driving a Jeep bearing

registration No. RJ-30-T-0376 on a public road near Palera Talab,

Delwara. It is alleged that while attempting to climb a slope, the

jeep could not ascend. The petitioner, acting in a rash and

negligent manner, suddenly reversed the jeep at a high speed

without taking due care and caution. In the process, the reversing

jeep hit an elderly lady, Smt. Shanti Devi, who was walking on the

road behind it. The impact caused her to fall, and the jeep's tyre

ran over her, resulting in grievous injuries. She was rushed to the

hospital but succumbed to her injuries. Based on FIR No. 34/2005

dated 15.05.2005, lodged by Narayan Lal (PW-1), a case was

registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. Charge-sheet under Sections 279 & 304A IPC was submitted

against the petitioner before the Trial Court, where charges were

framed against the petitioner for the offences as stated above.

The petitioner denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and

thereby demanded to be tried on merits.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as

many as 13 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 10

documents in supports of its case. Thereafter, explanation of the

petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the

petitioner denied his participation in the incident, though no

evidences were produced in his defence.

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:31:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48710] (3 of 9) [CRLR-698/2009]

5. After completion of trial, the learned Trial Judge, vide judgment

dated 18.09.2007, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as

stated above.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of

conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before

the Appellate Court, however, the same was also rejected vide

judgment dated 05.06.2009 and the judgment passed by the Trial

Court was upheld.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while not challenging the

conviction entirely, earnestly urged for the leniency in the matter

of the sentence. It was contended that the petitioner was about

27 years of age at the time of the incident and had no criminal

antecedents.

8. It was argued that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his

family, and that a custodial sentence at this stage would cause

undue hardship to his dependents. The accident was not a result

of a wilful act but rather a momentary error in judgment on a

steep slope, and the petitioner had no intention to cause harm.

9. In the alternate, counsel for the petitioner prayed that,

considering the long passage of time elapsed since the date of the

incident, this Court may take a lenient view and substitute the

sentence of imprisonment with payment of adequate

compensation to the legal representative of the deceased.

10. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision

petition. He supported the concurrent findings of fact recorded by

both the courts below. He argued that the prosecution has

successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:31:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48710] (4 of 9) [CRLR-698/2009]

cogent and reliable evidence, including the testimonies of eye-

witnesses. He submitted that the rash and negligent driving on a

public road, which resulted in the death of an innocent woman, is

a serious offence, and the sentence awarded by the courts below

is just and appropriate, requiring no interference.

11. Heard the arguments advance by both the sides and perused

the material available on the record.

12. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the offending

vehicle, Jeep No. RJ-30-T-0376, was being driven by the

petitioner, Chandan Singh, at the time of the accident. This is

proved by the testimony of PW-4 Lukman (the registered owner of

the jeep), the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act

(Exhibit P-5), and the direct testimonies of eye-witnesses.

13. The most crucial eye-witnesses, PW-3 Praveen Kumar, PW-7

Kailash, and PW-8 Mahesh Chand, have consistently and credibly

deposed that the petitioner, while attempting to climb a slope,

suddenly and without due caution, drove the jeep in reverse at a

high speed. Their testimonies establish that the petitioner failed to

take the necessary precaution of checking whether any person

could be hit by the jeep before reversing on the slope.

14. As a direct consequence of this rash and negligent act, the

reversing jeep hit Smt. Shanti Devi, who was walking behind it.

The jeep's wheel ran over her, causing grievous injuries leading to

her death. The Post-mortem Report (Exhibit P-8) corroborates the

cause of death. The Mechanical Inspection Report (Exhibit P-6)

confirmed that the jeep had no mechanical faults, thereby

negating the defence of a mechanical failure causing the sudden

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:31:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48710] (5 of 9) [CRLR-698/2009]

reverse.

15. The learned courts below have rightly held that driving a

vehicle on a public road carries a non-delegable duty of care

towards other users. The act of reversing suddenly on a slope

without ensuring if the path is clear, constitutes gross negligence

and rashness. The findings of guilt under Sections 279 and 304-A

IPC are based on a sound and logical appreciation of evidence. I

find no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the

concurrent conclusions of the courts below on the point of

conviction. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and

304-A IPC is, therefore, upheld.

16. It is not disputed that the incident occurred in the year 2005.

The petitioner has not remained in custody at any stage of the

proceedings. Having regard to the fact that nearly two decades

have passed since the incident, and considering that the petitioner

was a young man at the time, with no criminal antecedents, this

Court is of the considered view that sending him to jail at this

belated stage would serve no useful purpose. Instead, the ends of

justice would be adequately met by directing the petitioner to pay

suitable compensation to the legal representatives of the

deceased.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the identical situations

recently in the following cases:-

17.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of George Vs. State of

Kerala1, while reducing the sentence of the accused for the same

offences, observed as under in paras 12 to 15, as follows:-

"12. A three-Judges Bench of this Court, on

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:31:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48710] (6 of 9) [CRLR-698/2009]

30.06.2021, while considering the case of negligent driving by a bus driver in Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police, 2021 17 SCC 799, ordered for substitution of sentence, for the conviction under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, to fine only. The Court took into account that the accident had happened over 26 years ago and the concerned accused was on bail throughout the trial. 13. In the present case, the appellant was arrested on 10.05.2024 and by now, he has been in custody for about 117 days. Considering the circumstances, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence to the period already undergone, in the interest of justice. Ordered accordingly.

14. Insofar as the direction in the impugned judgment, for payment of compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs, the learned counsel would point out that the appellant is a poor person and is now aged around 69 years. He has several medical issues and therefore the compensation sum be either waived or be reduced.

15. In the peculiar facts of this case, while upholding the conviction, we reduce the compensation payable by the appellant to Rs.50,000/-. This amount should be deposited before the trial court within 60 days of the release of the appellant. The trial court should then arrange for remitting the amount to the victim's family."

17.2. Similarly, in the case of Muthupandi Vs. State through

the Inspector of Police2, while reducing the sentence of the ac-

cused, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under in paras 8 &

10, as follows:-

"8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the records of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the conviction under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC imposed by the courts below.

9. However, we are inclined to allow the appeal partly on the ground of sentence. The incident is of the year 2013. Eleven years have elapsed since the incident occurred. The appellant has been on bail throughout. It also emerges from the case of the prosecution that the witnesses and the deceased were negotiating about 70 cattle on the road. While we do not absolve the appellant from the act of rash and negligent driving, we certainly want to keep the above factors in mind while considering the sentence. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be payable

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:31:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48710] (7 of 9) [CRLR-698/2009]

to the mother of the deceased who is the sole legal heir. Though served, she is not appearing.

10. In view of the special facts of this case, while upholding the conviction, we set aside the sentence of three months simple imprisonment. We also set aside the fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC as well as fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. Instead, while maintaining the conviction, we order that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited in this Court along with interest be paid to Mrs. Ponnalaghu W/o Vellaisamy (mother of the deceased), Ramar Kovil Street, M.Vadipatti Post Nilaikottai Taluk, Dindigul, District 624211. This is on account of the loss suffered by her on account of the act of the appellant and we pass this order in exercise of powers under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C."

17.3. Similarly, in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. The State of

Rajasthan3, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while reducing the sentence

of the accused, has observed in paragraphs 4 to 6, as follows:-

"4. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has already undergone approximately one and a half month in custody.

5. Considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1990 and that the appellant had also, being the driver of the vehicle, substantially suffered injuries, we feel that the sentence awarded be reduced to the sentence already undergone, subject to the condition that the fine amount be increased to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) out of which Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) be paid to the legal heirs of each of the three deceased.

6. The fine amount be deposited within a period of two months before the concerned Trial Court which will disburse the amount as directed above."

17.4. Even in the judgement of the co-ordinate bench of this court

in Chander Shekhar vs State of Rajasthan 4, the sentence of

the accused was reduced to the period already undergone by him

while directing him to pay the compensation. It was held in paras

4 to 7 as follows:-

"4. We take notice of the fact that the accident occurred on 20th August, 1997. The appellant herein was driving a Jeep. 6 to 7 passengers were sitting in

4 Criminal Appeal No. 4161/2024

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:31:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48710] (8 of 9) [CRLR-698/2009]

the Jeep. At around 12 O'clock in the night, the jeep rammed into a stationary truck. In the accident, some of the passengers got injured and two succumbed to the injuries.

5. It is difficult for this Court to look into the evidence on record, having regard to the concurrent findings of three courts holding the appellant guilty of rash and negligent driving.

6. However, we are of the view that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. We say so because out of two years, he has already undergone six months of rigorous imprisonment.

7. In such circumstances referred to above, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences enumerated above, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. We have granted this indulgence keeping in mind that almost 27 years have elapsed since the time the accident occurred."

17.5. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in Chotu Ram vs State

of Rajasthan5, while relying on the judgement in George

(Supra), Vinod Kumar (Supra), Chander Shekhar (Supra) and

Muthupandi (Supra), held that:

"14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding the conviction, this Court reduces the sentence of the petitioner to the sentence already undergone by him, however, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the petitioner to deposit a compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- with the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of compensation within the above stipulated time, he would suffer the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court would take necessary steps to ensure the compliance of the judgment passed by this Court."

18. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

while upholding the conviction, this Court modifies the sentence of

the petitioner under Section 279 and 304A of IPC, this Court

deems it just and proper to direct that, instead of undergoing any

imprisonment, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- 5 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 905/2003

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:31:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48710] (9 of 9) [CRLR-698/2009]

as compensation with the Trial Court within a period of six weeks

from today.

19. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of

compensation within the above stipulated time, the sentence as

awarded by the Trial Court shall revive and become executable.