Court Affirms One-Year Imprisonment for Driver, Emphasizes Limited Revisional Jurisdiction
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of Param Jeet Singh for causing a fatal accident due to rash and negligent driving, affirming the judgments of the lower courts. The court maintained the one-year simple imprisonment sentence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with penalties under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The case stemmed from an incident on May 22, 2006, when Singh was driving a Scorpio vehicle at high speed, hitting a pedestrian, Sadiq Ali, who succumbed to his injuries. The accident took place on a road populated with cattle and pedestrians, where the vehicle was reportedly driven on the wrong side, violating traffic norms.
The trial court had earlier found Singh guilty based on eyewitness accounts and corroborative evidence, such as the damage to the vehicle's front glass. The judgment was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which is not akin to appellate jurisdiction. The court underscored that revisional jurisdiction is primarily to correct patent defects or jurisdictional errors, not to reassess evidence unless findings are perverse.
Despite Singh's appeal claiming insufficient evidence and questioning witness credibility, the High Court found no merit in the arguments. The court noted that the vehicle's registration number was clearly established and witnesses, despite minor contradictions, provided credible testimony. Furthermore, the accused's failure to transport the injured to the hospital post-accident constituted a breach of statutory duty under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Justice Kainthla remarked on the importance of responsible driving, especially in areas with heavy pedestrian and animal traffic, and reaffirmed the principles governing the exercise of revisional powers, aligning with Supreme Court precedents.
The decision reinforces the judiciary's stance on ensuring accountability for negligent driving and upholding legal principles in revisional proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Revisional Court jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or law. Concurrent factual findings by lower courts should not be upset without clear perversity or gross miscarriage of justice.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 397, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 279, 304A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sections 184, 187, Evidence Act, 1872 Section 146, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 134
Param Jeet Singh v. State of H.P., (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2811541
