1. The applicant has preferred the present criminal revision being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 3.11.2000 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal appeal No.85/2000 whereby learned Appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.4.2000 passed by the J.M.F.C., Jabalpur in criminal case no. 652/98, whereby the applicant-accused has been convicted under Section 304-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year along with fine of Rs.5000/-, with default sentence as stipulated in the judgment.
2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that on 26.6.1998 when the complainant was going on motorcycle to his house situated at Narmada Road, Gwarighat, the truck bearing registration no. MUJ/2095, which was being driven by the applicant rashly and negligently, overtook and dashed the scooter coming from the opposite direction and due to which, Baby Methu, scooter rider, the father of the complainant, fell down and died on the spot. The matter was reported to the police by the complainant C. G. Methu, on which, FIR, Ex.P/1, was registered at the Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur. The matter was taken into investigation and after completing all due formalities, charge sheet was filed against the applicant-accused before the court concerned. Learned trial court after trial of the case found the applicant accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and vide its judgment dated 28.4.2000 convicted the applicant accused under Section 304-A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 year along with fine of Rs.5000/-. Being aggrieved thereof, the applicant ???
accused preferred criminal appeal no.85/2000 before the learned 7th
Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur which was dismissed by the
impugned judgment.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, the applicant has filed this criminal revision on
the ground that the concurrent finding of the learned both the courts
below is contrary to law. On record there is no reliable and plausible
evidence to establish the charges against the applicant. The prosecution
case is based only on unreliable statements of C. G. Methu (PW-1), Roop
Singh (PW-2) and Roshanlal (PW-3). Hence, prayer is made to allow the
revision and set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence.
4. Learned PL appearing for the respondent / State has argued in support of the impugned judgment and stated that the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence of the learned both the courts below is in accordance with law. Hence, the revision be dismissed.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record, it is found that in this case death of the deceased Baby Methu was taken place on account of hit by truck on 26.6.1998 at Rampur to Gwarighat road and this fact has been proved by the statements of the prosecution witnesses, C. G. Methu (PW-1), Roop Singh (PW-2), Roshanlal (PW-3) and Dr. R.P. Pyasi (PW-4) as well as autopsy report Ex.P/3.
6. Now, the main question is as to whether at the time of incident the vehicle which caused death of the deceased was being driven by the applicant in the rash and negligent manner.
7. In this case, C. G. Methu (PW-1) who is son of the deceased, Roop Singh (PW-2) and Roshanlal (PW-3) have stated that the deceased was coming on scooter from Gwarighat to Rampur side and the driver of truck bearing registration no. MUJ/2095 driving the said truck with high speed dashed the scooter coming from opposite side and caused death of the scooter rider, Baby Methu. Thereafter, the driver of the vehicle no. MUJ/2095 took the said vehicle ahead and tried to run away from the spot but after some short of distance the said vehicle was stopped by the public and when they reached near the vehicle, found the applicant coming out of the cabin of the said vehicle from the driver side and caught hold by the people and handed over to the police.
8. Learned both the courts below on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances held that the vehicle was driven by the applicant on the date of incident and the speed of the said vehicle was 40-50 kms. per hour as disclosed by the aforesaid witnesses. Therefore, it is also proved that the vehicle was driven with a great speed.
9. On perusal of the record it is found that the FIR was lodged by the son of the deceased, C. G. Methu (PW-1) on 26.6.1998, in which, it has not been mentioned that the vehicle was stopped by the public and the applicant was found in the vehicle coming down from the driver side and caught hold by the public and handed over to the police. As per the prosecution story, the vehicle was seized after two days of the incident. Similarly, the applicant was arrested after two days of the incident that is on 28.6.1998. If the applicant had been caught hold by the public or if he had been seen by the aforesaid witnesses on the spot, these facts would have been disclosed by the aforesaid witnesses to the police and the vehicle in question would have been seized on the same day and the applicant would have also been arrested on the same day. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the applicant was not seen on the date of incident. There is also no evidence to connect the applicant with the aforesaid vehicle. There is no material to prove that this vehicle belongs to the applicant or he was having possession over the vehicle at the time of incident or he was driving the vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was driver of the vehicle which caused death of the deceased. Similarly, there is also no evidence on record to establish the fact that the vehicle was driven in the rash and negligent manner merely saying that the vehicle was driven with a speed of 40-50 kms per hour; without proving other circumstances, only this inference cannot be drawn that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. Accordingly, the findings of the courts below are perverse and it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond the reasonable doubt.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the criminal revision is hereby allowed and the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence directed by both the courts below against the applicant for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from the aforesaid charge. The applicant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. Fine amount, if any deposited, by the applicant be refunded to him.
11. A copy of this order be sent immediately to the trial court and the jail authorities concerned for information and necessary action.
