Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 177 indian penal code in Bharatsinh vs State on 2 December, 2010Matching Fragments
1. By this application under section 401 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the applicant has challenged the order dated 30th July, 2003 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Bharuch, 4th Fast Track Court, Rajpipla in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2002, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valiya in Criminal Case No.94 of 1999 whereby the applicant had been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under section 429 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. The applicant has also been directed to pay Rs.1,500/- by way of compensation to the owner of the bullock, Motibhai Peechabhai Vasava. In the light of the fact that the applicant has been sentenced for the offence punishable under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, no sentence has been awarded in respect of the offences punishable under sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that one Motibhai Peechabhai Vasava lodged a complaint with the Valiya Police Station which came to be registered as a First Information Report vide C.R. No.II-16/1999 for the offences under sections 279 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The substance of the complaint was that on 27th January, 1999 at 9 o'clock in the morning, the complainant alongwith his brother Shanabhai had loaded cotton in the bullock-cart and were proceeding towards Valiya Gin. In the meanwhile, at about 10 o'clock in the morning, between Valiya and Desad, an S.T. bus bearing No.GJ-18B-174 which was coming from the opposite side at full speed and was being driven in a rash manner, dashed against the bullock-cart due to which the bullock sustained a cut on its body. The driver fled by driving the bus at full speed. Pursuant to the said first information report, investigation came to be carried out and chargesheet came to be submitted in the concerned court. After taking cognizance of the offence, summons was issued to the applicant-accused. Upon culmination of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valiya, vide judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2002, held the applicant guilty of the offences punishable under section 279 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him as noted hereinabove. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Joint District Judge, Bharuch, 4th Fast Track Court, Rajpipla who, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 30th July, 2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2002, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
3. Mr. Adil Mehta, learned advocate for the applicant referred to the deposition of the various witnesses as well as panchnama of the scene of offence and other evidence on record in detail. Referring to the deposition of the complainant - Motibhai Peechabhai who has been examined as prosecution witness No.1, it was submitted that the evidence of the complainant was contradictory inasmuch as in the first information report he had stated that he alongwith his brother Shanabhai were going towards Valiya whereas in his deposition, he has stated that he was going alone with his four year old grandson Prakash. It was further submitted that the prosecution has neither examined the bus conductor nor the passengers of the bus. Even the panchnama of the bus or the bullock-cart had not been carried out. After the death of the bullock, no inquest had been made nor had any post-mortem been performed to ascertain the cause of death. It was submitted that Shanabhai, the brother of the complainant as well as the panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution. It was submitted that in the light of the fact that both the panchas have turned hostile, there is no corroboration to the panchnama. Moreover, the panchnama does not indicate any significant marks to show that any accident as alleged had occurred. It was further submitted that no independent witness had been examined and that there was a substantial difference between the evidence of the complainant and doctor and as such, the applicant is even otherwise entitled to be granted the benefit of doubt and is required to be acquitted. It was, urged that on the evidence as emerging on the record of the case, neither the offence punishable under sections 279 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code nor could the offence punishable under sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act be said to have been proved. In the circumstances, both the courts below had erred in holding that the applicant was guilty of the offences punishable under sections 279 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.