Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 462 (MP)

AMAR SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.

2005-03-31

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2005
ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 22-11-2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Criminal Appeal No. 33/04, whereby the judgment dated 17-9-2004 passed by J.M.F.C. Narsinghpur in Criminal Case No. 479/04, by which non-applicant No. 2 Batan Lal was found guilty and convicted u/s 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of one year R. I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, has been set aside. Hence this revision against the acquittal of non-applicant No. 2 is preferred by the father of the deceased Satyendra Raghuvanshi with a prayer of restoration of the judgment of the trial Court. The prosecution case in brief are that on 4-5-1999 at about 1.30 in the noon the son of present applicant Satyendra Raghuvanshi went to his field by Motor Cycle bearing No. M. P. 20-KC-7233 to find out the concerning trucks which were passing through his field and when he was crossing the highway road from just infront of Prince Dhaba situated at the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Kareli, the non-applicant No. 2 who was driving the bus of M. P. State Road Transport Corporation bearing No. M. P. 07F-0035 met an accident with the said motor cycle in rash and negligent manner, resultantly abovesaid Satyendra was died, an offence was registered at Police Station, Kareli and after investigation non-applicant No. 2 was charge-sheeted and on trial found guilty and convicted by the trial Court but in appeal he was acquitted. Hence, this revision at the instance of father of the deceased. Having heard learned counsel of the applicant on admission and on perusing the record of trial Court and the impugned judgments, I have not found any circumstances on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction in other words, the revision deserves to be dismissed. Counsel of the applicant submitted that the driven of bus by non-applicant No. 2 in rash and negligent manner was proved and there was a direct nexus in between the negligently act of non-applicant and the death of the said Satyendra Raghuvanshi and there was sufficient circumstances to convict non-applicant No. 2 and was rightly convicted by the trial Court. Counsel of the applicant submitted that the driven of bus by non-applicant No. 2 in rash and negligent manner was proved and there was a direct nexus in between the negligently act of non-applicant and the death of the said Satyendra Raghuvanshi and there was sufficient circumstances to convict non-applicant No. 2 and was rightly convicted by the trial Court. He further submitted that at the time of accident the present non-applicant No. 2 was posted as driver of the bus and the same was proved by the investigating Officer by exhibiting the duty certificate as Ex. P. 9 but the same was not relied by the Appellate Court and he supported and justified the judgment of the trial Court and prayed for restoration of it by setting aside the judgment of Appellate Court. In view of aforesaid submission, I have gone through the evidence on record, as per statement of Vijay Kumar Sharma (P.W. 1), who categorically stated in his in chief that the person who was dashed by the bus was suddenly crossing the road and accident took place. He also said that the speed of the bus was very high but no actual speed was not mentioned by him and this witness has not stated anything regarding his experience or knowledge about driving of a vehicle. While Hariom Singh (PW. 2) has also said in his cross-examination that the deceased was trying to cross the road from the front side of the bus and other witness Chhidami Lal has stated that at the time of accident he went to bring the water meanwhile incident took place then he saw that incident was already taken place and concerning bus had also gone away, so it appears that he is not the eye witness of the accident regarding the speed of the bus and negligently act of non-applicant No. 2. Prakash Raghuvanshi (PW. 6), Raj Kumar Raghuvanshi (PW. 5), Surendra Singh (PW. 4) and other witnesses are not the eye witness of the incident and they have not seen the incident, so in view of the evidence that non-applicant No. 2 was plying the offending bus in Kareli Gadarwara highway road and the deceased was crossing the highway road without taking notice of approaching bus and on sudden crossing the road abovesaid incident took place. According to my considered view, when bus was plying on a highway road then driver could not be expected to take notice of the person who would suddenly cross the road. Therefore, it cannot be said that the driver was negligent regarding the abovesaid incident. My aforesaid view is based on a reported decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs. The State of Maharashtra, in which held as under : Penal Code 1860, section 304-A - Negligent driving along with public way - If a pedestrian suddenly crosses a road without taking note of the approaching bus there is every possibility of his dashing against the bus without the driver becoming aware of it. The bus driver cannot save accident however slowly he may be driving and therefore he cannot be held to be negligent in such a case. (Quoted from its practicum) In view of aforesaid circumstances, no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Appellate Court in setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and also in acquitting the present non-applicant No. 2. Therefore, this revision has no merit and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission.