IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
Baldau S/o Rruha – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 101 of 2012
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 304A - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 3/181 – Offence of Death by negligence – Charged - Case of prosecution is that, at about 09:45 hours while applicant was driving the tractor bearing registration No. CG 09 C 5379 and trolley bearing Registration No. CG-04-ZQ-1707 rashly and negligently in village Chilamkodra- Kumharpaniya road turned it turtle because of which Sriram and Sanjay Gond sustained injuries, whereas Dharmu Jaiswal died on spot – Held, it is quite vivid that it was raining on date of incident, a cow suddenly came across the road, applicant tried to avoid the accident, he took the vehicle to side of road, vehicle got turtle - In opinion of this Court, learned courts below have committed illegality in convicting the applicant for offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act - Judgments passed by both courts below are hereby set aside and applicant is acquitted of charges levelled against him under Section 304A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act - Applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, no further order to set him free etc is necessary - His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C - criminal revision is allowed.
ORDER :
1. This criminal revision is filed against the judgment dated 24.01.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2011, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2011 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kabirdham in Criminal Case No. 269/2010 wherein the applicant was convicted under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment to further undergo S.I. for two months; under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act imposed only fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment to further undergo S.I. for one month, has been affirmed. However, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 279 of IPC has been set aside.
2. The applicant was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 269/2010 dated 06.04.2011 whereby the applicant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment to further undergo S.I. for two months; Section 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment to further undergo S.I. for two months and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment to further undergo S.I. for one month.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.01.2010 at about 09:45 hours while the applicant was driving the tractor bearing registration No. CG 09 C 5379 and trolley bearing Registration No. CG-04-ZQ-1707 rashly and negligently in village Chilamkodra- Kumharpaniya road turned it turtle because of which Sriram and Sanjay Gond sustained injuries, whereas Dharmu Jaiswal died on the spot.
4. Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/1) was registered on the basis of information given by Pawan (PW-1) on 14.01.2010 at about 12:00 hours. F.I.R. (Ex.P/7) was registered by Chhabil Tandekar (PW-7) against the driver of tractor-trolley. Merg intimation was given on 14.01.2010 at about 19:00 hours regarding death of Dharmu vide Ex.P/8. Postmortem of dead body of deceased was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Khadsan (PW-10) vide Ex.P/12 who opined that cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to excessive internal bleeding. Sriram (PW-9) and Sanjay Jaiswal (PW-5) were injured persons and they were medically examined by Dr. S.K. Mishra (PW-11) where the injuries sustained by them were found simple in nature. Injured Sanjay was advised for X-ray. Investigating Officer Chhabil Tandekar (Head Constable/PW-7) recorded the statements of the witnesses and completed the investigation.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Sections 3/181 and 5/181 of Motor Vehicles Act against the present applicant. The learned trial Court framed charge for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The applicant abjured the said charges and pleaded non-guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of the case and exhibited 14 documents and statement of the applicant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded.
6. The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant as mentioned in Para-1 of this order. The appeal was preferred by the applicant before the Sessions Court, Kabirdham against the judgment of conviction and order sentence recorded by the trial Court and in turn, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant, however, acquitted the applicant for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC against which the instant criminal revision is filed.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the evidence of the PW-1, PW-5, PW-8 and PW-9, it is crystal clear that on the date of incident it had rained and accident was caused due
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the degree of negligence and rashness to establish offences under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing t....
Driving recklessly and losing control of a vehicle causing injury or death constitutes negligence, warranting conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a driver to exercise reasonable care and precaution on public roads, and the prosecution's burden to prove rash and negligent driving i....
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's driving was rash or negligent to uphold a conviction under Section 304(A) IPC.
The burden of proving negligence and rashness in a motor vehicle accident rests on the prosecution, and the evidence must establish these elements beyond reasonable doubt.
Res ipsa loquitur applies to unexplained vehicle deviation from road, shifting negligence burden to driver; revisional jurisdiction limited, no reappreciation absent perversity.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.