The court affirmed that moving a vehicle without ensuring passenger safety can constitute culpable negligence leading to liability under Section 304-A of the IPC.

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by accused / applicant Munna Khan being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8th March, 1994, passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 139/91 affirming the judgment dated 28th November, 1991, in Criminal Case No. 1023/89 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, by which he convicted the accused / applicant under S.304 - A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The undisputed relevant facts for the disposal of this criminal revision are that on 29th October, 1984, deceased - Roshanlal Gupta along with complainant - Jamuna Prasad and other passengers boarded the truck bearing registration No. CPT / 2598 at Village Bhesmudi to travel by truck up to Village Kharora. The driver of the said truck was the present accused / applicant. After the truck reached Village: Kharora, the truck stopped and the passengers started getting down from the truck. While deceased Roshanlal Gupta was alighting from the truck, his full pant was entangled with the side iron hook of the truck and before he could alight from the truck, the truck moved forward and in the process, the deceased came beneath the rear wheel of the truck and he was crushed by the rear wheel of the truck and died at the spot. A report to that effect, Ext. P1 was lodged by Jamuna Prasad, co - passenger in the Police Station: Kharora. The Officer In charge of the Police Station after registering the case started the investigation. The truck was mechanically examined by Syed Karimuddin, PW 2. The past mortem of the body of the deceased was got conducted by Dr. D. C. Jain of Medical College, Raipur. The post - mortem report, Ext. P3, was prepared by the doctor. Panchanama, Ext. P6, of the dead body was prepared by the Investigating Officer and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused / applicant. The particulars of the offence were explained to the accused, he denied the charge and the prosecution in order to prove the offence against the accused examined in all seven witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under S.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The perusal of the statement of the accused revealed that he simply denied the statements of the prosecution witnesses and stated they are telling lie. Even about the eye - witness - Jamuna Prasad, he has stated that he was not in the truck. However, in reply to the first question, he stated that he was driving the truck and whether the witnesses know him he does not know. In the last reply, he said, "he has not committed any mistake, what further more he can say about it". After hearing the counsel for the accused and the prosecutor, the learned trial Court convicted the accused / applicant as mentioned above and that said judgment was affirmed by the first appellate Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused / applicant and the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State / non - applicant.

4. The learned counsel for the accused / applicant argued that it is admitted fact that while alighting from the truck the full pant of deceased - Roshanlal Gupta was entangled in the hook, the accused was not aware of it and that is how the deceased was got crushed under the rear w