RAMJANAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dtd. 28/4/2014 passed by the JMFC, Katghora, in Criminal Case No.1406/2006 whereby the applicant has been found guilty for the offencer under Ss. 279 and 337 IPC and have been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500.00 for each offences. In case of default, simple imprisonment of 15 days was also ordered. Against the said order, the applicant has preferred an Appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.17/2014 and the appellate court also vide judgment dtd. 15/7/2016 has affirmed the judgment passed by the JMFC, Katghora, affirming conviction of applicant for both the offences.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that it is a case where the court below has not properly appreciated the evidence which have come on record on behalf of the prosecution and have passed the impugned judgment of conviction. It is a case where admittedly the applicant was operating the Dozer used for the transportation of coal within the mining area and that the place of incident was also a restricted area where the outsiders and civilians were not permitted. Referring to evidence of injured eyewitness PW-3, Satyanarayan Agrawal, it is submitted that as per PW-3 also it is a case where the accident took place from the front portion of the Dozer which was being operated by the applicant. The accident took place while the vehicle was being driven on the reverse and the fact that the Dozer did not hit the injured persons from the rear side of the vehicle itself establishes that there was negligence on the part of the injured persons and not the applicant who was driving the Dozer, and therefore, the conviction of the applicant is bad in law.

(3.) It was also contended by the counsel for the applicant that the place where the accident occurred was not a place from where the injured persons i.e. PW-1 Raghvendra and PW-3, Satyanarayan Agrawal, were supposed to travel and the present applicant who was the Dozer operator would not have the visibility of persons coming from the rear side of the vehicle at a close distance which had led to the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the applicant for the alleged accident. Thus, prayed for quashing of the impugned judgments of conviction.