IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV ON THE 14^th OF NOVEMBER, 2022 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4016 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

RAMAKANT VERMA S/O SHRI LAKHAN SINGH JATAV, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PASHUPALAN GAUTAM NAGAR THATIPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY MR. NARENDRA SINGH PARMAR - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE THANA BIJOLI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY MR. B.M. SHRIVASTAVA – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Present revision is filed under Section 397, 401 of CrPC challenging the order dated 15.9.2022, whereby charge under Section 304 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner – accused.

The facts in brief to decide the present revision are that a charge-

sheet under Section 304 of IPC has been filed against the petitioner by the Signature Not Verified respondent. The story of prosecution in brief is that on 26.5.2022 at about 12:00 in the noon, deceased persons Pappu S/o Daujiram, Rajabeti W/o Mahendra Jatav, Poonam D/o Mahendra Singh, Reshma D/o Mahendra Singh and Rajabeti W/o Rajaram were waiting for the bus on the side of the road near Siroli turn. At that time, petitioner drove the white Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. MP07 CH 4974 in a rash manner and having the knowledge that his act will in all probabilities cause the death of the aforesaid persons drove the vehicle over them.

The trial Court after hearing the parties framed charge under Section 304 of IPC against the petitioner against which present revision has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly framed the charge against the petitioner ignoring the provisions of Section 304 of IPC. The impugned order by which charge has been framed is against the settled principle of law and is contrary to the facts of the case. It is further argued that the evidence available on record does not show that the petitioner drove the vehicle over five persons with an intention to cause their death because there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner - driver already knew the deceased persons. The petitioner-accused had no reason to cause their deaths. The Signature Not Verified cocerned police has not considered the above aspect and filed the charge- sheet under Section 304 of IPC. Therefore, the impugned order framing charge under Section 304 of IPC be quashed and at the most, charge under Section 304-A of IPC can be directed to be framed against the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakaran vs. State of Kerala [Appeal (crl.) 775 of 2005; Date of Judgment 21.6.2007]

On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned order and prayed to reject the revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.

Section 304 of IPC reads as under:-

“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to muder. - Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;

or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely Signature Not Verified to cause death.

Section 304-A of IPC reads as under:-

“304A. Causing death by negligence.- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any r