LAKHAN MAHARAJ Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the judgment of conviction dtd. 5/8/1997 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) in S.T. No.135 of 1996 whereby each of the accused/appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default of payment of fine amount to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment of 06 months.

(2.) Prosecution story in short is that on 2/2/1996 at about 2:00 P.M. deceased Sarvar Ali Khan was riding his Scooter near Barkhedi Tola, where a truck bearing Registration No.MOU 1446 driven by appellant no.1/Lakhan Maharaj, accompanied by appellant no.2/Suresh Sharma and other co-accused Chanderlal (not a party in this appeal) rammed him from the opposite direction. The said collision threw Sarvar Ali Khan from his scooter and he succumbed to the injuries thus sustained.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the eye-witnesses are unreliable and they are 'made up' witnesses and learned trial court has relied upon the testimonies of eye-witnesses namely Abdul Majid (PW-1), Mohammad Imran (PW-2) and Shahid Khan (PW-14) while passing the judgment. Their testimonies are full of contradictions and omissions. Thus, it is submitted that the collision of scooter and truck was neither with any premeditation nor has any motive to commit murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that once the accused persons stood acquitted of Sec. 120B of IPC, there was no longer any mens rea or motive remaining to prove as noted by the Court below that there was indeed a criminal conspiracy. He further submits that the driver/appellant no.1-Lakhan Maharaj tried his best to avert the collision of truck with the scooter. As a matter of fact, the presence of 30 ft. long skid mark from the truck's tyre clearly suggests that driver tried his best to avert the collision. Furthermore, driver's act of stopping the truck and fleeing on bare foot, leaving behind all the important documents carrying his name inside the truck itself shows that the collision was accidental and not premeditated one and in panic, the driver left behind all the important documents containing his name and address. He further submits that prosecution has failed to prove or substantiate the common intention and hence in absence of any proof of the same, Sec. 34 cannot be attracted.