Order

15/01/2025

1. The Petitioner has made challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gaddi District Banswara, in Criminal Regular Case No.983/1991 (New Case No.138/1993), whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment in following terms:-

Punishable under Section Section 297 IPC Section 337 IPC Section 338 IPC Section 304-A IPC

Sentence, Fine and default sentence One month’s SI, fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to further undergo 5 days SI One month’s SI, fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo 5 days SI One year’s SI, fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo three months SI One year’s SI, fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo three monthsSI

A challenge is also made to the judgment dated 31.08.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.20/2005, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. I have heard the counsel of the parties and gone through the record.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that complainant Prabhakar appeared at the concerned police station on 13.09.1991 and reported that at approximately 10:15 AM, he had boarded bus number RJ-5364 from Bori Bus Stand to travel to Partapur. At around 10:30 AM, near Bhandar Talab Gadhi Pal, the driver drove the bus at high speed despite the road being narrow at the pal. Instead of reducing speed, he drove negligently, recklessly, and carelessly, causing the bus to lose balance and overturn towards the talab (pond) as a consequence of which, four passengers sitting in the bus died on the spot, and many others sustained injuries. Upon inquiry, the bus driver was identified as Saleem S/o Fakir Mohammad, resident of Gaddi. After investigation, police filed challan against the petitioner for committing an offense under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and for which cognizance was taken and substance of accusation was stated to him.

3.1. As many as 19 witnesses were produced and the reliance was placed on 38 documents to substantiate the charge. An explanation was sought from the petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denies from any fault of him in occurring of the accident. The core question before the court below was that whether, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was driving a bus which due to unbalanced overturned into a pond, and if yes, then whether he was driving the bus rashly and negligently, as a necessary consequence of which, an accident took place injuries in which some persons sitting therein received injuries and four persons died on the spot.

3.2. It is apt to note that the burden to prove the above two facts were upon the prosecution by adducing cogent, reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence.

3.3. P.W.1 Prabhakar deposed about the accident in which several suffered injuries and four succumbed to death. In the last line of his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he cannot say that who was driving the vehicle.

3.4. P.W.2 Kanji P.W. 3 Varsang and P.W. 4 Bada have turned hostile and did not support the stry set out in the charge sheet.

3.5. P.W. 5 Shanker and Halu are not related to the core two questions whether, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was driving a bus which due to unbalanced overturned into a pond, and if yes, then whether he was driving the bus rashly and negligently, as a necessary consequence of which, an accident took place injuries in which some persons sitting therein received injuries and four persons died on the spot.

3.6. P.W. 7 Smt. Durgawati has though alleged that she was sitting in the bus along with other passengers and the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle in a high speed. She have categorically stated that who was the driver, she did not know and even not able to identify him.

3.7. P.W. 8 Krishna Kant Joshi was not s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document