The discretionary nature of revisional jurisdiction and the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.

ORDER :

This Revision has been preferred by the applicants under section 397/401 of the ‘Code’ of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for short), against the judgment dated 18-8-2007, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 98/2007, by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewa, District Rewa (MP), whereby conviction of applicant under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year, with default clause, awarded to him by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Teothar, District Rewa, vide judgment and order dated 1-3-2007 in Criminal Case No. 54/2000, was affirmed.

2. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is that a complaint was made by complainant-Bhanu Pratap Singh (PW/1) on 31-12-1999, that deceased Tarun Pratap Singh was hit by a Jeep bearing registration No. MP-17-B/3260 near Rambagh, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver at a very high speed. Deceased was taken to the hospital at Choukhandi, but on way, he succumbed to the injuries. On complaint, a FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered by the police against the accused/applicant and after completing the investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against the accused/applicant for offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code before the concerned Magistrate.

3. During course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the applicant after examining the accused/applicant under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, opportunity was also given to him to lead defence evidence for which he denied. While examining the applicant under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, he stated that he is innocent.

4. After considering the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, the accused/applicant was found guilty for causing death of deceased Tarun Singh, due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep bearing registration No. MP-17-B/3260 and he was sentenced to undergo one year’s R.I. with fine of Rs. 1500/- (Fifteen hundred), in default whereof, to further undergo 2 months Simple Imprisonment for the offences punishable under section 304-A of the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18-8-2007, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewa, by which the appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Teothar, was dismissed, this revision petition has been filed praying for setting aside the judgment and order of sentence dated 1-3-2007, passed by learned Magistrate, Teothar and judgment dated 18-8-2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewa, and acquittal of the accused/applicant for the offence complained of.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that prosecution has failed to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of applicant so as to hold him guilty under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. In fact, the deceased was in an intoxicated condition and stumbling on the road. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and in order to attract the provisions of section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the applicant drove the offending jeep in rash or negligent manner. The prosecution witnesses inter alia stated that the accused/applicant was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, but failed to prove the decree of rashness and negligence by strong evidence. He further submitted that mere carelessness is not sufficient to convict the accused/applicant as the prosecution is required to prove the mens rea the guilty mind.

7. Lastly, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident is of 31-12-1999, i.e. about 17 years ago and applicant is suffering from persistent mental and physical agony since last about 17 years, therefore, in case this Court also finds guilty, then Court may e