ARVIND SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-accused has directed this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the JUDGMENT dated 22.6.2011 passed by Special Judge, constituted under S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities), Act Sagar in Criminal Appeal No.224/ 10 dismissing his appeal by affirming the judgment dated 16.7.2010 passed by JMFC, Sagar in Cr. Case No.5584/2009 convicting and sentencing the application under Section 304-A of IPC for RI one year with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of depositing the find further RI two months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in short are that on 2.8.2001 at about 8.45 in the morning the applicant Kallu @ Arvind was driving the tractor bearing No. MP 15-A/0233 along with trolley in rash and negligent manner, consequently one Bharat Ahirwar, who was standing in the trolley, was fell down and his head was run over by the trolley, resultantly he died on the spot. On lodging the report by one Ramlal Ahirwar an offence under Section 304-A of IPC was registered against the applicant, postmortem of dead body was carried out, in which it was revealed that he died because of the injury sustained in the alleged accident. On completion of investigation, the applicant was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. On framing the charge of Section 304-A of IPC the applicant abjured the same, on which the evidence was recorded and on appreciation of the same holding that the alleged accident was the cause and consequences of rash and negligent driving of aforesaid tractor by the applicant he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. On filing the appeal by affirming the judgment of the trial court, the same was dismissed by the appellate court, on which the applicant has come forward with this revision.

(3.) Shri Alok Vagrecha, learned counsel for the applicant after taking me through the evidence led by the prosecution along with exhibited papers said that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the direct nexus between any negligently act of the applicant and the alleged accident in which said Bharat Ahirwar had died. In continuation he said that in any case in the lack of any specific/ expert evidence showing the exact speed of the tractor at the time of accident mere on the basis of general testimony that tractor was driven by the applicant in rash and negligent manner, the applicant could not be convicted for the alleged offence. According to him one person may say the speed of 10-15 miles per hour is high speed while other person may say the speed of 20-30 miles per hours a reasonable speed, in the lack of exact speed mere on the presumption and assumption or probable speed the person like applicant could not be convicted for the alleged offence. In support of this contention he placed his reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Mohantalal Saha Vs. State of West Bengal, 1968 ACJ 124. He also placed his reliance in the matter of Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, 1968 AIR(SC) 829 and prayed to acquit the applicant by for setting aside the impugned judgment by allowing this revision.