KULDEEP SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant against the order dated 6.6.2012 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in ST No.74/2012, whereby the charge of offence punishable under Section 304/34 of IPC was framed.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short relating to the present revision is that on 15.4.2012 the complainant Sandeep had lodged an intimation to the police at Police Station Dharampur District Panna that a black coloured car bearing registration No.MP19CA0780 was lying in a nala and one person was found dead below the car. The police sent the dead body of the deceased Mushtaque for the postmortem and after due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate, who was competent to take cognizance and ultimately it was committed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panna after considering the prosecution evidence as available in the charge sheet, framed the charge punishable under Section 304/34 of IPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no eye-witness in the case, whereas the chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. It is apparent that the applicant was the owner of the car and the deceased was the driver of the car. It is stated by some witnesses like Sonu Khare etc. that the applicant along with one more person were talking on the road that a mistake has been done but the statement of such witnesses do not fall within the purview of extra judicial confession, because nothing has been confessed by the applicant. Similarly, one witness namely Kalla Urao has stated that when he saw the car the applicant was on the driving seat and the deceased was pushing the car from the front side. It is apparent that the deceased was found below the car. If he was pushing the car from the front side towards the backside, then it was not possible that he could be crushed by the car, because the car was moving towards the backward direction. Under such circumstances, the witness Kalla was not the person, who could say anything about the incident. There is a lot of gap between the position as told by the witness Kalla and the position of the car when the deceased was found dead. There is no evidence against the applicant that due to his fault, the deceased died, and therefore it is nowhere established by the prosecution that the offence under Section 304 of IPC is made out against the applicant. If he has disappeared the evidence, then the charge may be framed of that offence, but no charge under Section 304 of IPC may be framed against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.