RASHID KHA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 08.03.2018 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2017, by which the appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment and sentence dated 14.12.2016 passed by the JMFC, Guna in Criminal Case No. 126/2010, by which the applicant has been convicted under Sections 279, 337 (26 counts) and Section 304-A (8 counts) of IPC and Section 66/192(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has been sentenced to undergo three months' RI with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 279 of IPC, three months' RI on each count for offence under Section 337 of IPC and two years' RI on each count for offence under Section 304-A of IPC and a fine of Rs.2,000/- has been imposed for offence under Section 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision, in short, are that the applicant was driving the Bus bearing registration No. MP08-F-9685 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the Bus turned upside down causing death of 8 persons and injuries to 26 persons. The police after concluding the investigation filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offences under Sections 279, 337 (21 counts), 338 (14 counts), 304-A (8 counts) of IPC and Section 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as also filed charge-sheet against the co-accused Santosh for the offences under Sections 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) The Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 279, 337 (21 counts), 338 (14 counts), 304-A (8 counts) of IPC and Section 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the applicant, whereas framed charge under Section 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the co-accused Santosh. Both the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order to support its case examined the witnesses, namely, Pawan (PW-1), Mangilal (PW-2), Kartar Singh (PW-3), Kashiram twice marked as (PW-3), Munni Bai (PW-4), Prem Bai (PW-5), Banti (PW-6), Shivkumar Singh (PW-7), Sirnam Raghuvanshi (PW-8), Pran Singh twice marked as (PW-8), Bundel Singh (PW-9), Beer Singh (PW-10), Jugraj Singh (PW-11), Bhura (PW-12), Laliram (PW-13), Kamal Singh (PW-14), Kanhaiyaram (PW-15), Dinesh (PW-16), Raghuveer (PW-17), Ashok (PW-18), Kallu @ Lallu (PW-19), Padam Singh (PW-20), Amar Singh (PW-21), Rajesh (PW-22), Shashi (PW- 23), Mohan (PW-24), Smt. Susheela (PW-25), Smt. Asharfi Bai (PW-26), Radheshyam Sharma (PW-27), Motilal (PW-28), Ishwar Singh Dhakad (PW-29), Mahendra Singh (PW-30) and Banti Basor (PW-31). The applicant did not examine any witness in his defence.

(3.) The Trial Court by judgment dated 14.12.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 126/2010 acquitted the applicant for offence under Section 338 (14 counts) of IPC and convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 279, 337 (26 counts) and 304-A (8 counts) of IPC and Section 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced the applicant to undergo three months' RI with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 279 of IPC, three months' RI on each count for offence under Section 337 of IPC and two years' RI on each count for offence under Section 304-A of IPC and a fine of Rs.2,000/- has been imposed for offence under Section 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with default imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The co-accused Santosh was also convicted under Section 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act and a fine of Rs.2,000/- was imposed with default imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the applicant filed an appeal, which too has been dismissed by judgment dated 08.03.2018 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2017. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the prosecution has failed to prove that the applicant was driving the vehicle and even if it is found that the applicant was the driver, then the prosecution has failed to prove that he was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Under these circumstances, the conviction of the applicant is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent/State that the Courts below after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has concluded that it was the applicant, who was driving the vehicle at the time of incident in a rash and negligent manner. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. Pawan (PW-1) and Ashok (PW-18) have specifically stated that it was the applicant, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The applicant has not cross-examined these witnesses on the question of identity of the driver. Thus, it is held that it was the applicant, who was driving the vehicle.