Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 886 (MP)

Shanti Bai v. State of M. P.

2014-07-24

A.K.SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1.Heard on admission. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against judgment of acquittal passed on 2.9.2008 in Criminal Case no. 1361 of 2004 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pawai District Panna, whereby the respondent No. 2, accused has been acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused as there was ample evidence on record that the accused had driven the tractor in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the incident. 3. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that deceased Suresh Kumar Pandey was going on a cycle and two tractors were going towards the same direction when one tractor overtook the deceased and the deceased himself turned his cycle towards the road without noticing that another vehicle driven by the accused was coming and therefore, suddenly the accident took place and for such sudden accidental incident, the accused cannot be held responsible for rash and negligent driving as both the vehicles were going towards the same direction. Mukesh (PW4) was driving the tractor which was followed by another tractor driven by accused and witnesses has stated that for saving Suresh, accused has turned his tractor but Suresh has also turned his cycle in the same direction resulting in accident and death of Suresh. Both the tractors were using horn before the accident and Suresh suddenly came in front of the tractor driven by the accused. 4. Therefore, learned trial court is justified in holding that the death of Suresh was not a result of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the accused, it was an accident beyond the control of the accused over the deceased. 5. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and principles of law which needs no interference under the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.