Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 89 (MP)

Ravi Prakash Garg v. State of M. P.

2017-01-17

H.P.SINGH

body2017
ORDER : Shri H.P. Singh, J. 1. The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by order dated 28.03.2016, passed by the First Addl. Judge, to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Katni , in S.T. No. 238/2015, whereby the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge has framed the charges against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II, in alternative 304-A, 337, 379 of IPC, Section 56/192, 66/192 and 3/180 of Motor Vehicles Act and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 2. The facts necessary and relevant for the adjudication of this Criminal Revision are that on the date of incident i.e. 21.8.2015, at about 5:00 AM Truck (Hiva) No. MP-21- H/1031, which was driven by its driver rashly and negligently, had dashed the wall and entered into the house of complainant, in which his wife Surajmuni, his son Bafayat Khan as well as other family members, namely, Reshma Bi and Nishad came under the said vehicle and received grievous injuries. In this accident Surajmuni succumbed to the injuries. On the report lodged by complainant, police of Police Station Vijayraghavgarh, District Katni has registered the case vide Crime No.266/2015, and after completing the investigation charge sheeted the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304 of IPC & Section 56/192, 66/192 and 3/180 of Motor Vehicles Act and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 3. On 28.3.2016, learned Addl. Sessions Judge heard arguments over framing of charges and passed the laconic order in the order sheets of the case, holding that prima facie case for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304 of IPC & Section 56/192, 66/192 and 3/180 of Motor Vehicles Act and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is made out against applicant for the aforesaid offences. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of accident, the offending truck was not driving by the applicant, but the same was driving by driver Phool Chandra. The police has not investigated the matter properly. He submits that the police had examined the said truck mechanically and found that the accident took place when the driver was reversing it and suddenly tyre got burst. The police has not investigated the matter properly. He submits that the police had examined the said truck mechanically and found that the accident took place when the driver was reversing it and suddenly tyre got burst. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that learned Sessions Court without going through the evidence on record has levelled the charges as aforesaid against the applicant, ignoring the fact that police has not properly investigated the matter. He prayed to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order and to discharge the applicant from all charges. 5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly framed the charges under Sections 304 Part-II, in alternative 304-A, 337, 379 of IPC, Section 56/192, 66/192 and 3/180 of Motor Vehicles Act and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 6. It is undisputed that the accident took place by the offending truck (Hiva) bearing No.MP-21-H/1031 and accident had taken place, resulting into death of wife of complainant, namely, Surajmuni. In the said accident, other family members of complainant have received grievous injuries. 7. The Court should be satisfied that the accusation made against the accused is not frivolous and that there is some material for proceeding against him. The crux of the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not driving the truck at the time of incident, but the same was being driven by one Phool Chandra, who gave an affidavit that he was driving the offending truck and the accident took place suddenly when the tyre of offending vehicle got burst, is to be examined by the trial Court after recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. The evidence has yet to be taken and the aspects, which accused terms vulnerable can very well be clarified at the time of adducing evidence. The standard of test of evidence which is to be finally applied before recording the guilt of accused which otherwise is not exactly applied at the stage of framing of charges. 8. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I have found that the order of Court below is based on just and proper material evidence available on record. The standard of test of evidence which is to be finally applied before recording the guilt of accused which otherwise is not exactly applied at the stage of framing of charges. 8. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I have found that the order of Court below is based on just and proper material evidence available on record. After going through the statement recorded by the police and other evidence, it is clearly found by the Investigating Officer that at the time of accident, the applicant was driving the offending vehicle. The affidavit sworn by Phool Chandra cannot be relied upon at this stage and this ground can be raised before the trial Court at the time of recording the evidence. Therefore, I come to an ultimate conclusion that learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not committed any error of facts or law by framing the charge against the applicant as mentioned above. Hence, this revision being merit-less is dismissed upholding the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is finally disposed of.