Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 301 (MP)

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanhaiyalal

2010-03-12

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is directed on behalf of the appellant/ State under Section 378 of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.12.1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Begumganj, District Raisen in Criminal Case No. 183/90 acquitting the respondent from the charge punishable under Section 304A of IPC. 2. As per case of the prosecution on 17.5.1990, the deceased Kallu and his father Moolchand (P.W. 1) were coming from their village to Begumganj by the Bullock Cart, on reaching from approach road to Barra Road said Kallu stepped down from the Bullock Cart and while he was crossing the road for other side to have the drinking the water the alleged offending bus bearing registration No. CIF-244 driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner came there and dashed him, resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to it on the spot. On lodging the report by his father Moolchand (P.W.1) after preparing the spot map and inquest Panchnama the dead body was sent to hospital where his postmortem was carried out. After holding the investigation the respondent was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. 3. On framing the charge of aforesaid offence the respondent abjured the same, on which the evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the same the respondent is acquitted from such charge by the trial Court, the same is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the appellant/State 4. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate by referring the evidence available in record said the prosecution had successfully proved the alleged offence against the respondent but under wrong appreciation of such evidence the trial Court acquitted the respondent under wrong premises and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and convicting the respondent for the alleged offence by allowing this appeal. 5. Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments advanced by the State counsel, I have carefully examined the record and also perused the impugned judgment. In order to prove the case on behalf of the prosecution as many as six witnesses have been examined. Out of them three witnesses namely Mool Chand (P.W.1), Jagdish Prasad (P.W2) and Kanchhedi (P.W.3) are examined as eyewitnesses. In order to prove the case on behalf of the prosecution as many as six witnesses have been examined. Out of them three witnesses namely Mool Chand (P.W.1), Jagdish Prasad (P.W2) and Kanchhedi (P.W.3) are examined as eyewitnesses. According to their depositions the alleged accident took place on highway where the deceased Kallu after stepping down from the bullock Cart was crossing the road to fetch the water, which was available to other side of the road. So far the speed of the offending vehicle is concerned, all three witnesses have stated that same was plied on high speed but no one has stated exact speed of the bus. Out of aforesaid witnesses Jagdish Prasad (P.W.2) being driver of the tractor might have observed the speed of offending vehicle but in his deposition he had not stated anything about actual or approximate speed of the offending vehicle. In the absence of reliable evidence regarding the speed of offending vehicle and/or any negligental act of the respondent with respect of his driving regarding offending bus he could not be convicted for the alleged offence under Section 304A of IPC. 6. It appears from the impugned judgment that on appreciation of the evidence taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstance along with the factum that identification of respondent as driver of the offending bus has not been proved by the admissible evidence acquitted the respondent from the alleged charge. Such approach of the trial Court even on re-appreciation of evidence at this stage does not appear to be perverse or contrary to record. 7. It is settled proposition of law that on the highway or public way if pedestrian crosses the road without taking note on approaching bus there is every possibility of his dashing against the bus without the driver becoming aware of it. In such situation the bus driver cannot save accident however the same was driven slowly and therefore the driver of offending vehicle cannot be held to be negligent and convicted on such count. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Mahadeo Hari Lokare v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1972 SC 221 . In such premises also there is no scope in the case at hand to hold the conviction against the respondent at this stage. 8. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Mahadeo Hari Lokare v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1972 SC 221 . In such premises also there is no scope in the case at hand to hold the conviction against the respondent at this stage. 8. In such premises, I have not found any perversity, infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondent passed by the trial Court. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.