LAXMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both the aforesaid criminal revisions have been preferred being aggrieved by the same impugned judgment dated 10 -09 -2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 50/2002, therefore, both these criminal revisions are being decided by this common order. The petitioners have preferred the aforesaid criminal revisions separately under Section 937/401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 10.9.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 50/2002 by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (MP) confirming the order dated 4 -6 -2002 passed in criminal case no. 383/2000 by the learned Special Railway Magistrate First Class, Gwalior (MP) convicting the petitioners for offence under sections 304 -A and 337 of IPC and sentencing each of the petitioners to undergo 6 months SI with fine of Rs. 3000/ - and pay fine of Rs. 500/ - respective, with default stipulation. The petitioners have also been convicted for offence under section 175 of the Indian Rail Act and each of them has been sentenced to undergo 3 months SI with fine of Rs. 500/ -, with default stipulation.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY the facts of the case are that on 5 -7 -1998 a head on collision took place between two trains namely 6317 Down Himsagar Express and 1107 Up Bundelkhand Express, in which two persons were reported to be dead and some passengers were injured. It is alleged that Himsagar Express was driven by the main driver Laxman Singh and the Assistant Driver Jitendra Kumar and due to negligence of aforesaid drivers/petitioners, the alleged incident took place. The learned trial court after trial held the petitioners guilty for offence punishable under sections 304 -A and 337 of IPC and also under section 175 of the Indian Rail Act and sentenced them accordingly by the judgment dated 4 -6 -2002. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners have preferred a criminal appeal but the learned lower appellate court had also rejected the appeal of the petitioners and confirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial court.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned both the courts below, the petitioners have preferred these two criminal revisions separately on the ground that both the courts below are not justified in convicting the petitioners in spite of the fact that ample evidence was available on record showing that the alleged incident took place due to negligence of the authorities controlling the signals.