s^^ ^s'- ••^'^- CF0000057977 ^Bng'.t.;-: IN THB HIGH CODRT OF MADHXA PRADESH AT jaBai.PDB. $- ".^:^..":."..^^'- CRIMiNAL APPEAL N0. 1995^ c^^S^M^ L^^@^% fi.lo&lf. ^.t.^.^jl1 Munna son o£ Ke^ultadav : aged about-;30 years, resident of village.Chuchuhia para, ;• Bi.laspur, M.P. !'' ;' - ' • . . &PBEI.LANT. ,V.E R S U S. • • - \". . '.' ' . • .. - -' • ':.'•.••'; -': .':: . ' . •"':' ' State of Maadhya Pradesh , . TUrOugh -fche District Magistrate , ; Bilaspur, M.P. -,..,', ' ... - • - :. ; RESPONDENT. •• / ''<>. K '.;. -lr (73 £^^ 1;^'''y HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AJ BILASPUR SIN6LE BEWH: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker &iwaker Crimlnal ABoeal No.664 of 1995 APPELL4NT RESPONOENT Vs Munna State of Madhya Pradesh Present: Mr. Monoj Jaiswal, Advocate for the appelTant. Mr. Akhil Mishra, Dy. fiovernment Advocate for the State. ORAL JU06MENT th (&elivered on 19" April, 2010) Pritinker Diwoker. J 1. With the consent of the parties, the matl-er is finally heard. 2. Appelkint-Munna has al^o-'beenproduced frpm the Central Jail, Bilospur in complidhce of the orcter datect 26.3.2010. 3. This criminal oppeal is directed against the judgmentof conviction ond order of sentence dated 29.3.1995 possed in S.T. No.235/92 whereby learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has convicted the appellcmt under Sections 304-A of the IPC cu^d sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year ond to pay 8 fine of Rs.5,QOO/-, in default of payment of fineto further undergo additional 5.1. for 5 months. The oppelfant has also been convicted under Section 337 of the IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.800/-. 4. -Case of the prosecution, ih brief, is that the oppetlant wos'driver of the truck ^earihg registration number AAPQ-7292. On 11.6.1989 at about 9.00 the appellant, whjle A'iving the said truck. which was loaded with the bricks ond inwhich tabourers were also sitting, passed • through a narrow louie as a result of which the truck turned turtle and labourer namely Mohbharat, sitting in the truck, came under it ond died on the sppt. Johitram, who wasalso sitt'ing in the said truck, also sustuined grievous injuries and died subsequently. In the said accident, other labourers namely Aytar Singh, Chaity, Pradhan, Naroyan, Khjlawan and Sendram haye alsp sustained simple injuries. y \..> ..:_..;>•' IS3^ •^€\ i»».^'.^ 5. On •the complaint of Sendrom (PW-3), report' of Ex.P-3 wos registered <md investigation was undertaken. During inyestigation, inquest (EX.P- 4) of body of deceased Mohbhonitwas prepared and thereafter, his dead body was sent for autopsy. Inquest of Johitrom, who atso died subsequently, was also prepared vide Ex.P-5. Other pas»ngers traveling in the said truck were also sent for medical examination. Truck bearing registratjon number MPQ-7292 was taken into custody vide seizure memo Ex.P-8. 6. After completing necessary investigation, eharge Aeet was filed against the appellant ond co-accused Premdas in the Coyrt of Judicial Magistrate 1 Closs, Bilaspur, who,in tum, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilospur froin where learned 2 Additional Sessipns Judge has received the case on transfer for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sectjons 304, 337, 338 of IPC against the accused persons, urfio abjured their guilt. The prosecution in orderto establidi charges against the accysed persons examined 16 witniesses in all. Thereafter statements of accused persons were recorded undei" Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied thecircumstances appearing againit them in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence & false implication. 7. The trial Courtafter hearing counsel for the respective parties vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appelbnt herein as mentibned in paragraph-1 of the judgment, however, acqujtted the co-accused Premdas from all the charges. ' 8. Mr. Jaiswal, feamed cpunsel for the appellont argued that even if the '• / ' ' ' enfire prpsecution case is taken'an its face value, the-appellant cannot Ntt-. •• be convicted for commissjon of offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. He.hos further stated that none of the witnesses have stated that the viehicle in question wasbeing driven rashly and negligently by the appellant ond therefore, he connot be convicted for the offence under Section 304A tff the IPC. 9. On •riie'other hand, Mr.Mishra, learned Dy. Sovernment Advocate for the State has supported theimpugned judgment. :!^ RdJshOn/- 10.1 have heard learned counsel for the parties qnd also perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 11. The prosecution witnesses Khilawon (PW-1) & Kaushal (PW-2), who were travelling in the said truck on the date of incident, have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. However, Koushal (PW-2) has stated that it is incorrect to say that the driyer hos intentionally entered .-rfie vehicle in the pit. 12. Sendram (PW-3) has stated in.his evidehce that he knows the accused Munna. He does not know accusedPremdas. He also knows Mohbharat & Johitram, who died 4-5 years back in an accident. l-1e has furHier stated that the incident took place due to mechanicat failure as while •the truck was in running condition, front tyre of the truck got itself removed from the vehicle. He has further stated that hadboulders were not there, the vehicle could have come out of the way safely. The prosecution witness'Narayan (PW-12) hos made simitar statement and said that the appeltant was not at fault. 13.Likewise the.other prosecution witnesses, who were traveling in -rtie said truck, did not state about the rash and negligent drivin9 of the driver of the vehicle i.e. appellant. 14. On careful and minute examination of the entireevidence, availabte on record, I am of opinion that there is no whisper of evidence to indicate rosh and negligent driving of the alleged truck by the appellanton the basis of whichthe charges can be estabtished and the / aj^pellant can be convicted for the offence in question. That'being so, the jydgmei?t fihpugned convicting ond sentencing the accused / / ; - appellant, dis mentioned above, is Iroble to be set aside. 15.Resuitantly,theappeal isallowed. The impugned judgment dated -2.9.3.1995 is hereby set aside. The appetlant is acquitted of the "charges leveled against him. 16.5ince the appellant is in custody, it is directed that he be released ^•fwtl'iwjth.jfheisnotrequiredinanyothercase. ^ ^ <;^^ Pritinker Biwafeer Jadge