Ishwar Das Patel & Anr. Vs Mahesh Kumar.
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced
Judgement Snapshot
Case Number
1350 of 2011
Hon'ble Bench
J.P.Gupta
Advocates
A. D. Mishra, Akhilesh Singh
Acts Referred
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 279, Section 338, Section 337, Section 304-A - Rash driving or riding on a public way - Causing grievous hurt by ac
Judgement Text
Translate:
1. The applicant has preferred the present criminal revision being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2011 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Criminal appeal No.60/11 whereby learned Appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.2.2011 passed by the J.M.F.C. / Gram Nayayalaya, Janpad, Hoshangabad in criminal case no. 29/10, whereby the applicant-accused has been convicted under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-, to undergo SI for 6 months and undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-, respectively, with default sentence as stipulated in the judgment.
2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that on 4.7.2009 complainant Mohd. Firoz got recorded a Dehati Nalisi at the police station Dolariya to the effect that on 4.7.2009 at about 20:45 pm, he along with Dhirendra and Shyam Babu were going from Bhopal to village Khapariya on motorcycle bearing registration no. MP.05AB/7907. In front of Dolariya Petrol Pump, Hoshangabad, the applicant driving Maruti car bearing registration no. MP.04/T-0032 rashly and negligently dashed the motor cycle of the complainant, due to which, the complainant Mohd. Firoz, Dhirendra and Shyam Babu sustained injuries. On the basis of Dehati Nalisi, an FIR at crime no. 54/2009 was registered for the offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC against the driver of offending vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki no. MP04/T-0032. The injured persons were sent to the district hospital, Hoshangabad for MLC. However, on account of death of Shyam Babu, the doctor concerned informed to the police, on which, a merg bearing no. 61/2009 was registered and after merg inquiry, additional offence under Section 304-A of the IPC was registered. After completing all due formalities, charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC was filed against the applicant-accused before the court concerned. Learned trial court after trial of the case found the applicant â???? accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and vide its judgment dated 21.2.2011 convicted the applicant â???? accused under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/-, to undergo SI for 6 months and undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively. Being aggrieved thereof, the applicant â???? accused preferred criminal appeal no.60/11 before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad 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 as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to identify the applicant as driver who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of incident, in which, Mohd. Firoz and Dhirendra received injuries and one Shyam Babu died. In absence of such evidence, the applicant cannot be held responsible for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and for commission of the aforesaid offence. 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 there is no controversy that on 4.7.2009 death of the deceased Shyam Babu was taken place on account of the incident done by the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Suzuki no. MP04/T-0032 by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and in the same incident, grievous injuries were also caused to the complainant Mohd. Firoz (PW-1) and Dhirendra (PW-2). In this regard, the prosecution case has been well founded. Complainant / injured Mohd. Firoz (PW-1), injured Dhirendra Pathak (PW-2), Ashok (PW-6) and Dr. S. K. Vijaywargiya (PW-3) and Dr. S. C. Sahu (PW-4) have proved the aforesaid facts by their statements.
6. But, the main objection of learned counsel for the applicant in this case is that there is no reliable evidence with regard to identification of the applicant as driver of the offending vehicle on the date of incident. On perusal of the record it is found that there is substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant. Mohd. Firoz (PW-1) has stated in his statement that at the time of incident, the applicant was not known by him and he had also not disclosed his name to the police. The driver of the vehicle ran away after incident with the vehicle. Dhirendra Pathak (PW-2) has stated in his statement that after incident, it came to know that the vehicle was driven by the applicant. Ashok (PW-6) has also stated in his statement that when he went near the offending vehicle, the driver was not found in the vehicle. The persons gathered over there told him that the vehicle belongs to the applicant. Apart from it, there is no other evidence or material regarding identification of the applicant as driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident. It is crystal clear from the statements of the aforesaid witnesses that at the time of incident they did not identify the applicant as driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the findings of learned both the courts below that the applicant drove the vehicle in the rash and negligent manner and caused grievous injuries to the complainant Mohd. Firoz and Dhirendra and also caused death of the deceased Shyam Babu are perverse and not sustainable as the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid fact beyond reasonable doubt.
7. 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 aforesaid offences are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from the aforesaid offences. The applicant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. Fine amount, if any deposited, by the applicant be refunded to him.
8. A copy of this order be sent immediately to the trial court and the jail authorities concerned for information and necessary action.
