Mazhar Ali vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. who was convicted by the JMFC, Sagar in Criminal Case

No. 1458/1996 under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months RI and Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI

for one year with fine of Rs. 300/- and default stipulation. Appeal No. 189/1999 filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar on

04.02.2000. Challenging the aforesaid orders, this criminal revision has been preferred by the appellant.

In brief, the prosecuted story goes to show that on 31.08.1996, at about 4:30 pm the applicant by rash and negligent driving of Bus No. M.B.W 1487

of MPSRTC at Rahatgarh bus stand caused accident. In the accident, two persons were died and six persons were injured. FIR has been lodged by

Gorelal Sen at Police Station Rahatgarh. Offence under Section 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC have been registered against the applicant. Chargesheet

was filed before the trial Court. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above.

The applicant filed criminal appeal against the finding of the trial court which was dismissed on the ground that there is sufficient evidence or record

against the appellant for causing accident of the offending vehicle by rash and negligent driving whereby two persons died and six were injured.

Against the aforesaid findings of the Courts below, this revision has been preferred by the applicant wherein it has been contended that the Courts

below committed illegality while ignoring the testimony of Mulayam Singh (PW-2) motor mechanic who had specifically stated that he had not found

the key of the vehicle, therefore he could not examine the brakes of the bus. It is not established that the accident took place on the account of the

negligence of the applicant. When the bus was started, it has gone down as the brakes of the bus were not working due to which the accident

occurred for which the applicant could not be held liable at all.

Therefore, the applicant is liable to be acquitted from the charges under Section 273, 337 and 304-A of IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the record.

As contended by the applicant, it is not in dispute that at the time of incident, the applicant was driving the offending vehicle. He also did not dispute

that in the accident, two persons namely Bihari Lal and Suraj Bai died and Hafiz Khan (PW-3), Dhanraj (PW-8), Paramlal Ahirwar, Munnalal,

Tulsiram and Babulal were sustained simple injuries. With regard to criminal liability of the appellant, prosecution examined Mohd. Ishaq (PW-1),

Munnalal Jain (PW-4), Gopal Prasad (PW-6), Hriday Singh Yadav (PW-7) and Tulsiram (PW-9) witnesses. Munnala, Dhanraj (PW-8) and Tulsiram

(PW-9) are the injured eyewitnesses. All the witnesses deposed that suddenly, bus came towards Sagar and after hitting one two persons entered into

the hut. On the way, the aforesaid persons got injured.

Munnalal (PW-5) clearly deposed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the applicant. Similarly, Tulsiram deposed about the rash and

negligent driving of the applicant. The incident took place in the day time. Spot map shows that where the incident occurred, there were so many

shops situated in the vicinity. Witnesses also deposed that there is a bus stand due to which there was rush. Hence, it was the responsibility of the

driver of heavy vehicle to take proper care and precaution to prevent any unprecedented incident.

The reason of the accident itself establish the careless and rash driving of the applicant. He was under obligation to check the vehicle was

technically fit before driving it.

On the suggestion of learned counsel to the applicant, K.M.Goswami (PW-11) Investigating Officer admitted that the vehicle was seized in working

condition. Mulayam Singh (PW-12) Mechanic examined the offending vehicle. He found all the systems were in proper condition. He also deposed

that he did not find the key of the vehicle due to which he could not check the brakes.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the testimony of Mulayam Singh (PW-12) is sufficient to give benefit of doubt in favour of the

applicant to establish that the accident was caused due to brake failure in the offending vehicle.

This Court is not in agreement with the aforesaid contention because no suggestion has been given to Mulayam Singh (PW-12) with regard to

brake failure system in the offending vehicle. Where the applicant himself has taken plea in his defence that the accident occurred due to brake failure

of the offending vehicle.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds, that offence under Section 279, 337 and 304-A has been duly proved by the prosecution by adducing

reliable and cogent evidence that the accident was caused to rash and negligent driving by the applicant. Â Under the revisional jurisdiction, this Court

does not find any perversity or illegality in the findings of the Courts below.

In view of the aforesaid, this criminal revision stands dismissed.

Applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are canceled and he is directed to surrender immediately before the concerned trial Court to undergo remaining

part of his jail sentence, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate action under intimation to the registry.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the Court below for information and compliance alongwith its record.