MAHADEV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment passed by Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar, in Cr. Appeal No. 214/1999 on dated 24-3-2000 confirming the judgment passed by JMFC Mandleshwar in Cr.C. No. 38/99 wherein learned Magistrate found the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 279 of IPC and sentenced him with R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that on 27-1-1999 at about 11.30 a.m. Vesta and Kunwar Singh were working in the field of Ganesh Patidar. Applicant came from the side of the village driving tractor bearing number M.P.-10-A/1109 rashly and negligently. Vesta was dashed by the tractor and was crushed by the wheels of the tractor. Kunwar Singh also sustained injury on his hand in this accident. Police registered a case under Sections 304-A, 279 and 338 of IPC against the applicant and after investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate after trial found applicant guilty and convicted him as stated herein above.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant Shri L.S. Chandiramani contended that there is no evidence to prove that accused/applicant was driving the tractor rashly and negligently at the time of incident. He has drawn attention of this Court specifically towards mechanic report of the tractor Ex. P-9 and the statement given by prosecution witness Rewaram P.W. 9. Learned Counsel submitted that by the statement of witness Rewaram P.W. 9 it was proved before learned Trial Court that the steering of the tractor was not working and it had become free when vehicle was examined. Shri Chandiramani submitted that as the steering bolt of the steering wheel all of a sudden broke and steering became free so it was not possible for the applicant to control the tractor and, therefore, the incident was merely an accident and not an act of rashness or negligence on the part of applicant/accused. Shri Chandiramani, Advocate drawn the attention of this Court towards the provision of Section 80 of the IPC.