Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 776 (MP)

Ramesh Kevat v. State of M. P.

2014-07-08

D.K.PALIWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT D.K. Paliwal, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred under Sections 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha, in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2014 on 28.2.2014, whereby charge under Section 304 Part II of IPC (on two counts) has been framed against the petitioner. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to this revision petition are that on 6.5.2013 Rajendra Singh has informed Vishan Singh that two persons are lying dead. A motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 40 BA 7580 is also lying nearby. It seems that death of the deceased has taken place due to vehicular accident. The marriage invitation card is also lying at the spot in which the mobile number is printed, hence, he is informing him (Vishan Singh). Upon this information, Vishan Singh reached the spot where Rajendra told him that accident has taken place from a dumper which was going towards Vidisha and both the deceased were going towards Pipaldhar from the side of Vidisha. The dead-bodies were identified as Narayan Singh Rajput and Chandrabhan Singh Rajput who were the uncle and cousin brother of Vishan Singh. On this information, Merg intimation was recorded. During enquiry, it was found that driver of the dumper bearing registration No. MP 40 GA 0488 knowingly that some persons are likely to die drove the aforesaid dumper at a very high speed and dashed the motorcycle as a result of which deceased fell down and the wheels of the dumper passed over their bodies. Hence, crime No. 111 of 2013 under Section 304 Part II of IPC has been registered. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. The learned JMFC has committed the case for trial and the case was made over for trial to learned ASJ, Ganj Bansoda, District Vidisha, who has framed the charge under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Being aggrieved, this revision petition has been preferred. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is illegal and against the settled principles of law. There is no prima facie evidence for framing the charge under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Being aggrieved, this revision petition has been preferred. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is illegal and against the settled principles of law. There is no prima facie evidence for framing the charge under Section 304 Part II of IPC. To constitute the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove (i) the intention of the accused to cause death, (ii) that the accused acted with the knowledge to cause death and (iii) premeditation. The aforesaid ingredients are missing in the case. Hence, the learned trial Court has erred in framing the charge. It is further submitted that there is no material showing that dumper was driven at a very high speed. It is prayed that impugned order framing charge under Section 304 Part II of IPC be set aside. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the impugned order and submitted that the material collected during the investigation prima facie indicates that dumper was driven at a high speed and the applicant knowingly hit the motorcycle as a result of which two persons died on the spot. Hence, it is prayed that revision petition be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. As per the statement of Rajendra Singh, he was going to Vidisha on 6.5.2013 at about 12-1 p.m. When he reached ahead of Pipaldhar, he saw that two dead-bodies and a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 40 BA 7580 were lying. Some invitation cards were also lying. In the marriage card, mobile number was printed. On the basis of that, he talked with Vishan Singh on his mobile and informed that dead-bodies are lying alongwith a motorcycle. He further stated that some persons were coming from Parakh on motorcycle. They were saying that one dumper has passed through at a very high speed. There is no eyewitness of the incident. Munshilal in his statement has stated that he is the owner of the dumper bearing registration No. MP 40 GA 0488. Ramesh Kevat is his driver in the said dumper. On 6.5.2013 Ramesh has gone to Satpada. In the night, he informed him that he has caused an accident in which two persons have died. Munshilal in his statement has stated that he is the owner of the dumper bearing registration No. MP 40 GA 0488. Ramesh Kevat is his driver in the said dumper. On 6.5.2013 Ramesh has gone to Satpada. In the night, he informed him that he has caused an accident in which two persons have died. He also informed that he has left the dumper after cleaning its wheels near old police Station. From the perusal of site plan, it appears that marks of tyre and dead-bodies have been found just middle of the road. 7. Culpable homicide has been defined in Section 299 of IPC which reads as under:- 299 Culpable homicide.-Whoever cause death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. For commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that death has been caused by the assailant under any of the circumstances mentioned in five exceptions to Section 300 of IPC. 8. In the instant case, as noticed earlier, there is no eye witness of the incident. There is no material to show that petitioner driving the dumper at a high speed intentionally or knowingly dashed the motorcycle driven by the deceased. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. From the material available on record, it appears that incident is the result of driving of the dumper by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner, therefore, the alleged act of the petitioner is punishable under Section 304A of IPC. In my opinion, the learned trial Court has not considered the material in its proper perspective and erred in framing the charge under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Hence, the impugned order framing charge is not sustainable. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.