1999 Supreme(MP) 994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
N.P. Singh, J.
State of M.P. – Petitioner
V.
Bherulal – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 182 of 1990(I)
Decided On : 19-8-1999

Headnote:(1) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S. 279 and 337 – driving at excessive speed, rash and negligent manner not proved – acquittal proper.

       (2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 378(3) (J) – appeal against acquittal – finding of trial Court not shown to he perverse – appeal liable to be dismissed.

       (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 154 – FIR lodged after 4 days – name of accused not mentioned – defence of accused that he was not the person who committed the crime becomes tenable.

        Short Note

       1. This is an appeal under section 378(3) (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the respondent of the charge of offence punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandsaur in Criminal Case No. 125/88.

       2. The respondent was prosecuted on the allegation that on 9th Nov. 1981 at about 10.45 a.m. the respondent was driving a passenger bus in a rash and negl igent manner as a result of which the bus overturned and met with an accident near bridge on river SHIVNA. In the accident complainant and other passengers sustained injuries. Complainant Mayaram (PW 3) was admitted to hospital for the treatment and on 13.11.81 he lodged FIR Ex. P – 2, at Police Station, Mandsaur. Dr. I.R. Khan (PW 1) examined the complainant and found two simple injuries on the person of the complainant.

       3. After completion of investigations, charge – sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken.

       4. The defence was that the bus was not being driven by the respondent at the relevant time. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence, acquitted the respondent of the charge.

       5. The prosecution examined in all three witnesses Dr. I.R. Khan (PW I), Suraj (PW 2) co – passenger and Mayaram (PW 3) complainant himself.

       6. On perusal of the evidence Suraj (PW 2) and Mayaram (PW 3), there is nothing to show that the bus was being driven in excessive speed, rash and negligent manner. The incident took place on 9th Nov. 88 where FIR was lodged on 13th Nov. 88. The name of the respondent was not mentioned in the FIR. The omission of the name of the respondent in FIR supports the defence case that the respondent was not driving the bus at the relevant time. As the complainant has ample opportunity to ascertain the name of driver of the bus and named in the FIR as an accused.

       7. The findings of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. There is no merits in the case. It is, accordingly dismissed.

       8. The respondent is exonerated from the liability of his bail bonds.