MAHABIR SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 5.4.82 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1982 dismissing the revisionist's appeal against his conviction recorded in Crime No. 1145 of 1981 on 3.2.82 by the then Judicial Magistrate (X) Powayan, Shahjahanpur under Secs. 279, 337 and 427 IPC. The sentence passed by the trial court were however, reduced. The prosecution story in brief was that on 1.6.81 at about 3 P.M. P.W. -1 Bhuwan Lal and his son P.W. -2 Babu Ram were going on a bullock -cart to village Gangapur Setha. When this bullock -cart reached Sakrapur Dhannapur within the circle of P.S. Powayan, Shahjahanpur, the revisionist who was riding on a motor cycle and was driving it rashly dashed it against the bullock -cart which resulted in the death of a bullock worth Rs. 1000/ - and injuries to the complainant P.W. -1 Bhuwan Lal. The cart was also damaged. The motor cycle was also damaged and the revisionist also received injuries. He left the motor cycle at the scene of occurrence and went in a taxi. P.W. -1 Bhuwan Lal lodged the F.I.R. Ex. Ka -1 of this incident on the same date at 6 -40 P.M. He was medically examined on the same day at 7 -20 P.M. The injury report Ex. Ka -4 shows that he had five injuries caused by hard and blunt object. On the basis of the F.I.R. the case was registered, which was investigated by P.W. -5 S.I. Ram Singh Verma. The motor cycle was taken into custody and its memo. Ex. Ka -2 was prepared. Some broken pieces of glass were also found on the scene of occurrence. He collected them and prepared fund Ex. Ka -3. He recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the site plan and after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet in the case.

(2.) IT would not be out of place to point out here that P.W. -4 Dr. Jasvir Singh had examined P.W. -1 Bhuwan Lal at P.H.C. Powayan. On the same day the revisionist was brought in an injured condition to the same PHC by his wife. Dr. Jasvir Singh sent a memo. thereafter to police station Powayan and this is Ex. Ka -7. After examining the revisionist he referred him to District Hospital Shahjahanpur. It may also be noted that the revisionist did not deny that the motor cycle in question -belonged to him. No defence evidence was adduced.

(3.) IT has been argued that neither P.W. -1 Bhuwan Lal nor P.W. -2 Babu Ram could have seen the person driving the motor cycle and, therefore, it cannot be said that revisionist was the person responsible for this accident. Both the witnesses of fact in their examination in chief clearly gave out that the revisionist was driving the motor cycle and statements find support from the fact that the motor cycle was found at the scene of occurrence with glasses broken and that it has not been denied on behalf of the revisionist that the motor cycle belongs to him. The second circumstance corroborating ocular evidence is that the revisionist was injured in the accident and he was taken to PHC on the same day for medical treatment by his wife. In my view these two circumstances clearly show that the revisionist was driving the motor cycle which dashed against the bullock -cart.