Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naresh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2018
Author: G.S. Ahluwalia
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia
1 CRR No.3131/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Criminal Revision No.3131/2018
...........Applicant: Naresh Baghel
Versus
.......Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ashad Khan, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 18/07/2018
Date of Judgment : 23/07/2018
Whether approved for reporting :
ORDER
(23/07/2018) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 30/6/2018 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2017 by which the judgment and sentence dated 7/3/2017 passed by the JMFC, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 2092/2014 has been affirmed and the conviction of the applicant for offence under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC has been maintained and the applicant has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.200/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 338 of IPC and no separate offence has been awarded for offence under Section 279 of IPC as the same has been treated as a lesser offence of Section 338 of IPC.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that complainant Gajendra Jatav lodged a report at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior on 11/12/2014 alleging that 2 CRR No.3131/2018 he was going along with his mother on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP07 ML 2625 from village Sirohi to village Rarua. At about 11:00 am when he reached to public road, one motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP07 MM 1415, which was coming from the side of Chinnore in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the complainant as a result of which, the complainant and his mother Smt. Rajabeti sustained various injuries.
3. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, the police registered the offence in Crime No. 1035/2014 for offence under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. The spot map was prepared and the injured was sent for medical examination. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and, accordingly, the charge-sheet for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act was filed.
4. The Trial Court, by order dated 8/5/2015, framed the charges under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act.
5. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.
6. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the witnesses, convicted the applicant by judgment dated 7/3/2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 2092/2014 for the offence under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of three months and six months and fine of Rs.100/- and Rs.200/- with default imprisonment respectively.
7. The applicant was acquitted of the charge under Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court, the applicant filed a criminal appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 54/2017. Although, the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction of the applicant for offence under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC, but held that since the offence under Section 279 of IPC is the lesser offence and, therefore, a separate sentence is not required to be awarded for 3 CRR No.3131/2018 the offence under Section 279 of IPC. Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the trial Court for offence under Section 279 of IPC was set aside and sentence of six months and fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 338 of IPC, as awarded by the trial Court, has been affirmed.
9. 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 it was the applicant who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
10. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that it is well established principle of law that in exercise of revisional powers, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible unless and until the findings given by the Courts below are perverse or not passed on the evidence available on record. In the present case, the applicant has not pointed out any perversity in the findings given by the Courts below.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
12. Dr. J.K. Masoriya (PW-6) had medically examined the injured Smt. Rajabeti (PW-3) and has found the following injuries:-
(i) Lacerated wound of left parietal region,
(ii) Swelling of left wrist, and
(iii) Pain in the chest.
This witness has further found the fracture of Distal end of left radius bone. The MLC report of Rajabeti (PW-3) is Ex.P-6 and the X-ray report is Ex.P-7.
13. Rajendra Singh (PW-1) and Anil (PW-2) have specifically stated that the accident was caused by the motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP07 MM 1451 and the said motorcycle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Anil (PW-2) has specifically stated that the present applicant was driving the said motorcycle.
14. Smt. Rajabeti (PW-3) and Sobharam (PW-5) have also stated that one motorcycle dashed against the motorcycle of 4 CRR No.3131/2018 Rajendra Singh (PW-1) as a result of which Rajendra Singh (PW-
1) and Rajabeti (PW-3) fell on the ground and sustained injuries.
15. The registration number of the motorcycle is specifically mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-1 which was lodged within four hours of the incident and the police station is situated at a distance of 12 kms from the place of incident. The applicant has not disputed the ownership of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP07 MM 1451.
16. Suresh Chandra (PW-4) has seized the registration documents of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP07 MM 1451 and the driving license of the applicant from his possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.P-4 and the applicant was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.P-3. The spot map was prepared at the instance of Rajendra Singh (PW-1) which is Ex.P-2.
17. Thus, in the light of the evidence which has been led by the prosecution as well as the defence of the applicant, it is clear that the FIR was lodged without any delay and in the FIR, the registration number of the motorcycle is specifically mentioned as the offending vehicle. The applicant is undisputedly the owner of the said motorcycle. Amit (PW-2) has identified the applicant as the driver of the motorcycle. The witnesses have specifically stated that the motorcycle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP07 MM 1451 has caused the accident and Dr. J.K. Masoriya (PW-6) has also proved the injuries sustained by Smt. Rajabeti (PW-3) and has also proved the fracture sustained by Smt. Rajabeti (PW-3).
18. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that it was the applicant who was driving the motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP07 MM 1451 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident as a result of which Smt. Rajabeti (PW-3) sustained certain injuries including the fracture of distal end of left radius bone.
5 CRR No.3131/201819. No perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the applicant. It is well established principle of law that the findings of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court while exercising power under Section 397/401 of CrPC unless and until the same are found to be perverse. Since, no perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the applicant, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is guilty of committing offence under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
20. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the incident of rash and negligent driving of the vehicles on the road is increasing day by day and these cases are to be dealt with all seriousness.
21. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rigorous imprisonment of six months, as awarded by the Courts below, for offence under Section 338 of IPC does not call for any interference.
22. Accordingly the judgment and sentence dated 30/6/2018 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2017 as well as judgment and sentence dated 7/3/2017 passed by the JMFC, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 2092/2014 is hereby affirmed.
23. The applicant is in jail.
24. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR (G.S. AHLUWALIA)Date: 2018.07.26 12:23:44 +05'30' Judge AKS 23/07/2018