Rajesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6114 MP

                                                                        01

         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            CRR 1062/2022
                    (Rajesh Singh Vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated: 25.04.2022
      Shri S.S.Kushwah, learned counsel for applicant.

      Shri     K.S.    Tomar,     learned     Public    Prosecutor     for

respondent/State.

This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated

11.03.2022 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge Gohad, District-

Bhind (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.74/2018, affirming the order

dated 03.12.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.40085/2015 by Judicial

Magistrate First Class Gohad District- Bhind (M.P.), whereby the

petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

       Section               Imprisonment                   Fine
304-A of IPC             One Year Six Month       Rs.1000/- with default
                         R.I.                     stipulation for six
                                                  months
146/196 of Motor         -                        Rs.1000/- with default
Vehicle Adhiniyam                                 stipulation
5/15 Madhya Pradesh -                             Rs.1000/- with default
Kolahal Niyantran                                 stipulation for three
Adhiniyam                                         months

In brief, facts of the case for disposal of this revision are that on

19.11.2014 at 5:50 pm Ramnaresh Sharma lodged a report at Police

Station Mow District Bhind against petitioner Rajesh that on

19.11.2014 at 5 pm he alongwith Raju Pachori, Shushil Ojha was

standing infront of house of Shushil Ojha, his grandson aged about 5

years was also standing there. At that time One Bollero Max Vehicle

bearing registration No. MP07/ GA 1910 came from village.

Petitioner Rajesh was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent

manner during election compaign of a contesting candidate Rahis

Ansari and dashed the said vehicle against the grandson of petitioner.

He brought his grandson to the hospital where he was declared dead.

On his report crime No. 385/17 for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A of IPC was registered. Postmortem was conducted.

During investigation offending vehicle was seized. Petitioner was

arrested. After trial, learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and

sentenced as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved of the same, the

petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Court and the Appellate

Court affirmed the said judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved of the said judgments, this revision has been filed by

the petitioner before this Court on the ground that Court below relied

upon inconsistent and contradictory evidence without analyzing

proper evidence of witnesses and committed gross error in convicting

the petitioner. There are lots of contradictions omissions in the

evidence of witnesses. Besides this, in this revision nowhere it has

been stated that what illegality was committed by the Court below, it

seems that petitioner has filed this criminal revision as if this is second

appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

On going through the record, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that the petitioner was driving the bus rashly/negligently at the

time of accident leading to loss of control resulting in accident; as

such, the Courts below have not committed any illegality, irregularity

or impropriety in appreciating the prosecution evidence and holding

that the petitioner drove the vehicle rashly/negligently leading to an

accident resulting in death of grandson of complainant. In the

aforesaid situation, petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of

provision of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Further the scope of revision

under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. is very limited.

The Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand Vs. Delhi

Administration reported in (1975) 4 SCC 649 has held that, the

jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is

severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of the

evidence. The said judgment has been relied by the Apex Court in the

case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh

Anand and Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659.

In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the

matter. This Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence as an

appellate Court in its Revisional jurisdiction. In absence of any

illegality which warrants interference by this Court in Revisional

jurisdiction, interference is declined. Consequently, this Criminal

Revision is dismissed.

(Deepak Kumar Agarwal) Judge ojha

YOGENDRA OJHA 2022.04.26 12:09:32 +05'30'