Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

State Of M.P. vs Ramdulare on 22 August, 2017

Author: S.K.Awasthi

Bench: S.K.Awasthi

                                  -( 1 )-
                                                      Cr.A.No.43/2014

         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       BENCH AT GWALIOR
                            SINGLE BENCH
              BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
                 Criminal Appeal No.43/2014
                           The State of M.P.
                                    Versus
                                 Ramdulare
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.D.Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the
appellant/State.
Shri R.K. Shrivastava with Shri Pushpendra Bhargava,
learned counsel for the respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ORDER

(22.08.2017) The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 11.05.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.5300/2006 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').

2. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 10.08.1998 at around 4:00 PM, the truck bearing Registration No.C.I.G./7145 was overturned in front of Paper Mill, Banmore, as a result, twenty persons sustained injuries and one of them Mohanram succumbed to the injuries. The aforesaid vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the accused/respondent Ramdulare who escaped from the spot leaving out the vehicle. The matter was reported

-( 2 )-

to the Police Station Banmore and an F.I.R. was registered at Crime No.122/1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. All the injured persons were referred for medical examination to assess the nature of injury sustained by the injured. The injuries were sustained by Keshav Singh, Amratlal, Hariram and Virendra, were found to be grievous in nature. The dead body of the deceased Mohanram was sent for the post-mortem. During investigation, the Police seized the offending vehicle from the spot and prepared the spot map. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

3. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt. He took a plea that at the time of the accident, he was not driving the truck and has falsely been implicated in the matter but no defence evidence was advanced.

4. The trial Court examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the respondent/accused Ramdulare from the charges under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the trial Court, the appellant/State has preferred this present criminal appeal before this Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State has submitted that the trial Court has committed error in passing the order of acquittal in favour of the

-( 3 )-

respondent/accused as there exists overwhelming evidence against the respondent. From the statements of Virendra Kumar Rai (PW-7) and Sunil (PW-12), it is established that at the time of the accident, the truck was driven by the respondent/accused Ramdulare rashly and negligently and in spite of that, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the reasonings given by the trial Court and submitted that no interference can be made to the impugned order.

8. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.

9. Lokendra (PW-3), Dhurv Singh (PW-4), Hariram (PW-5), Keshav Singh Yadav (PW-6), Bhaskar Lal (PW-8), Laxminarayan (PW-9), Shyamnandan (PW-10), Ganesh (PW-11) and Naresh (PW-13) had stated that on 10.08.1998 at around 3:30 PM, after duty hours they were waiting for the vehicle to go their home. Since the buses which actually plied on that route were not coming due to a road block that's why they took a lift from the truck which was coming from J.K. Tyre factory campus. This vehicle was overturned near Banmore, as a result, they sustained injuries but none of these witnesses has neither given the registration number of the offending vehicle nor have they told that who was driving the truck at the time of accident.

-( 4 )-

10. Jagdish Prasad (PW-1) deposed that two and half years ago, when he was sitting near the pump house of the Municipal Council, Banmore, he saw that one truck came near his Gumti and overturned in an attempt to save a bicyclist. After that, the driver of the truck ran away leaving his vehicle on the spot but he has not seen the registration number of the truck. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution, but even after this no such fact has come in his cross-examination which supports the prosecution version.

11. Virendra Kumar Rai (PW-7) stated that he was employed in J.K. Tyre Factory on 10.08.1998. After completion of the work, he was waiting for the vehicle at the factory gate to return home but no buses plied at that route were coming due to a road block (Chakka Jam). At the same time, a truck came from Nurabad side and all the employees of the factory including him boarded the truck. The truck was driven in a high speed by accused Ramdulare due to which it was overturned near Paper Mill, as a result, he sustained injuries on his right hand. Other co-passengers also sustained grievous injuries and one of them namely Mohanlal died on the spot but the witnesses have not disclosed the registration number of the vehicle, which was being driven by the respondent-accused at the time of the accident. Witness Virendra Kumar Rai admitted in his cross-examination that his statement was recorded by the Police but from the perusal of statement, it appears that the name of the driver is

-( 5 )-

not mentioned in it. Therefore, the statements of the witnesses do not seem credible that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was driven by the accused Ramdulare.

12. Sunil (PW-12) deposed that on 10.08.1998 at about 4:00 PM, he was travelling in the truck bearing Registration No.C.I.G./7145, which was being driven by Ramdulare. When the truck reached in front of Paper Mill, it was overturned due to rough driving by driver Ramdulare, as a result, 20 to 25 persons travelling in the truck had been sustained injuries but he admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of the accident, he had not seen that who was driving the vehicle. Since he filed Motor Accident Claim Case therefore he is saying that the vehicle was driven by Ramdulare.

13. Prosecution witnesses Ganesh (PW-11) and Naresh (PW-13) although claims that the truck was being driven at high speed but none of these witnesses stated about the exact/approximately speed of the truck. In the case of Arvind Singh Rajpoot v. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R.[2011] M.P. 2904, this court has observed in the following manner :-

"7. Before proceeding further I would like to mention here that in order to prove the speed of the alleged vehicle no technical and scientific investigation like the tyre makes or its photo graph were collected by the investigating agency otherwise in the light of such technical and scientific evidence considering the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses the exact or approximate speed and the factum of negligence on the part of the

-( 6 )-

applicant could have been ascertained. In the lack of such evidence mere on the vague depositions of the above mentioned witnesses the speed of the vehicle could not be deemed to be rash and negligent. In fact in the lack of any specific evidence regarding speed in the deposition of said witnesses the same have lost their values and in such premises no inference could be drawn against the applicant to hold the alleged vehicle was driven by him in rash and negligent manner. My aforesaid view is also fortified by the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Nageshwar Shrikrishna Choubey vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1973 MPLJ 240."

14. On examining the case at hand, it is apparent that the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case is also applicable to the present case. As in this case also the prosecution has not made any attempt to prove the exact speed from any of the witnesses. In such premises mere on the basis of the version of the witnesses stating the high speed of the offending vehicle, the respondent could not be convicted.

15. Apart from it, Virendra Kumar Rai (PW-7), Bhaskar Lal (PW-8) and Shyamnandan (PW-10) have been sustained injuries in the accident but they do not know that who was driving the vehicle. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by the accused/ respondent.

16. It is the settled law that the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal

-( 7 )-

unless the approach of the lower appellate Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality. Merely because two views are possible, the High Court would not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the lower appellate Court as held in the decision of State of M.P. Vs. Ramcharan and others, 1985 MPLJ 714.

17. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance on merits in the appeal. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed by affirming the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena.

18. The respondent is already on bail. His presence is not required. It is directed that his bail bonds be discharged.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court along with record for compliance.

(S.K.Awasthi) Judge AK/-