SRINAGAR — Sessions Court Pulwama on Wednesday upheld the conviction of the accused involved in road accident and dismissed the appeal against the conviction.
According to CNS, Abdul Rashid Malik, Principal Sessions Judge Pulwama, upheld the conviction of Sanjay Kumar son of Hans Raj, resident of Ousu Udhampur under Section 304A/279RPC for driving a Tanker rashly and negligently and causing the death of Shabir Ahmad Ahangar son of Ghulam Mohammad Ahangar, resident of Anchar Soura Srinagar and causing injuries to Sameer Ahmad Dar son of Abdul Rashid Dar, resident of Anchar Soura Srinagar at Keegam, Srinagar-Anantnag National Highway on 04-04-2013.
Principal Sessions Judge Pulwama dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Sanjay Kumar on 31-10-2018 in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge Pulwama.
The Court after hearing the public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Magistrate whereby Sanjay Kumar was convicted under Section 304A and 279 RPC and sentenced to six months imprisonment and a fine of rupees 1000 for causing the death of Shabir Ahmad Ahangar and injuries to Sameer Ahmad Dar by driving the Tanker in a rash and negligent manner.
The Principal Sessions Judge, while rejecting the appeal and maintaining the conviction, came to the conclusion that the Trial Magistrate has properly appreciated the statements of the witnesses and the variations in the statements of witnesses, which are neither material nor serious enough to affect the case of prosecution adversely, are to be ignored as the statement of a witness has to be read as a whole and the Appellate Court cannot pick up a sentence in isolation from the entire statement by ignoring its proper reference and use the same against or in favour of a party.
The Court while interpreting the definition of rash and negligent act in light of Section 304A observed that rash and negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of a given case and cannot be seen in isolation. “A person who drives a vehicle on a road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. Even when the driver is driving at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to rash and negligent driving within the meaning of the language of Section 279 RPC because the legislature has used the words ‘rash or negligent as to endanger human life’,” the Court observed.
The Court also deliberated upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in light of the evidence available on the record of the case and held the driver guilty of culpable rashness as the driver who was driving the Tanker, a Heavy Motor Vehicle, hit the pillion rider and the other injured who were travelling on a scooter and caused the death of pillion rider and injuries to the other driving the scooter as the driver had a duty to exercise reasonable care towards the dead and the injured who were in the area of foreseeable danger and the act of the driver of the Tanker was an over-hasty act.
“It was the duty of the driver while driving the motor vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution as to avoid injury to the general public or to any individual in particular and culpable rashness cannot be pardoned in view of the attendant circumstances and inference of rash and negligent driving which can easily be drawn as per the cogent evidence available on record,” the Court said.
The convict was directed to appear before the Trial Magistrate on 28-04-2022 to receive the sentence.