Maan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15077 MP

                                       1                            Cr.R. No. 751/23

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            AT JABALPU R
                                     BEFORE

                  JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 751 OF 2023

BETWEEN:-
MAAN SINGH, S/O SHRI BABULAL AHIRWAR, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION LABOUR, R/O
JAIPRAKASH WARD PIPARIYA, TAHSIL AND POLICE
STATION PIPARIYA, DISTT. NARMADPURAM (MP)

                                                                    .....PETITIONER


(BY SHRI ANIL SAKLEY - ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
DISTRICT COLLECTOR NARMADAPURAM, DISTRICT
NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .... RESPONDENT

(BY DINESH PRASAD PATEL                    -       DEPUTY   GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Reserved on              :       06.09.2023
                      Pronounced on            :       13.09.2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2                     Cr.R. No. 751/23

This criminal revision having been heard and reserved for order,
coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal
pronounced the following:


                              ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.PC. has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed by learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Narmadpuram, in Criminal Appeal No.20/2019 (Man Singh s Vs. State of MP), whereby judgment dated 28.06.2019, passed by the learned JMFC in RCT No.669/2013 convicting the petitioner for commission of offences under Section 304-A, 279 and 337 of IPC and awarding him sentence of one year RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-, one month R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- and one month RI with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively with default stipulations has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of present revision are that on 14.07.2013 at about 2:00 during the day, complainant Rakesh Rai and his maternal uncle Pooran Lal, Damodar Rai, Kuwanr Patel, Chandrakant Chauksey, Ashok Rai and other people of village were going from village Dhuniya to village Tekapar, Raisen in Gama vehicle No. MP-28-BD-1053 to bring Damodar's daughter. The vehicle was being driven by Golu Kirar. At about 2:00 pm, during the day, as soon as they reached near village Chiriya, at the same time, from Pipariya side, driver of pickup vehicle drove the vehicle No. MP-05-G-6188 speedily and negligently & hit the complainant's vehicle from the side. On account of that, persons sitting in the vehicle, Pooranlal Rai,

Damodar Rai and Ashok Rai got injured and Pooranlal Rai got severe injuries in the head, who was declared brought dead by doctor in Pipariya Hospital. With respect to above accident, Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1 was lodged by complainant Rakesh Rai.

3. Learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner under Section 279, 337, 304-A of IPC. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 28.06.2019 passed in RCT No. 669/2013 (State of MP Vs. Mansingh), after evaluation of evidence, found petitioner to have committed offence under Section 304-A, 279 and 337 of IPC and sentenced him as above. Against the above judgment, petitioner filed an appeal and learned appellate Court, vide judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed in Cr.A. No. 20/2019, dismissed the appeal of petitioner and affirmed the trial Court's judgment with respect to conviction and sentence. Against this, petitioner have preferred present revision.

4. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

Scope of Revision u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC:-

5. Before analyzing the facts of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to examine the scope & ambit of criminal revision/powers of Court u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC. In this connection, I would like to refer decisions of Hon'ble apex court in State Vs. R. Soundirarasu , AIR 2022 SC 4218, State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 & Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 (3-Judge Bench).

6. In Duli Chand (supra),Hon'ble apex court has held as under:-

"5.........The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and,

therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. ....."

7. In R. Soundirarasu (supra),Hon'ble apex court has held as under:-

"75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631: (AIR 2002 SC 107: 2002 cri LJ 225 (SC)), this Court held as under:-

"3.....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."

76. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge- sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It

is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure."

8. In Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand (supra), Hon'ble apex court has held as under:-

"21.In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004 [Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav]. That was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.

22.The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 410 Cr.P.C. Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court."

It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C. conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power."

Findings:-

9. Now in the light of above legal parameters, I will examine facts of the instant case.

10. From evidence on record, it is clearly established that on 14.07.2013 at about 2:00 pm, near Chiriya, Panchamarhi road Pipariya, accident occurred between Pickup vehicle No. MP-05-G-6188 and Gama vehicle No. MP-28-BD-1053 and in the said accident, complainant, Damodar Rai, Ashok, Lakhan Lal etc. got injured and Pooranlal Rai died and nature of Pooranlal's death is not homicidal in nature. From evidence on record, it is also evident that Gama vehicle No. MP-28-BD-1053, in which injured and deceased were traveling was driven by Golu @ Paramsukh (PW-7) whereas pickup vehicle No. MP-05-G-6188 was being driven by petitioner Maan Singh. On above points, I have gone through the evidence on record and in this Court's considered opinion, there is no illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by the appellate Court with respect to above.

11. Now the sole question before this court is whether findings recorded by the learned appellate Court with respect to rash and negligent driving by petitioner are illegal/perverse or not supported by any legal evidence on record. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that at the time of accident, pickup vehicle No. MP-05-G-6188 was being driven rashly or negligently. It is also urged that just on the basis of an accident having occurred, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently.

12. With respect to above, the most material witness is Golu @ Parmashukh (PW-7), who was driving Gama vehicle No. MP-28-BD-

1053, in which injured and deceased were traveling. Prosecution witness Golu @ Parmashukh (PW-7) has deposed in his examination- in-chief itself that there was a collision with the vehicle coming from the front. He has stated nothing more in his examination-in-chief. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot tell, on account of whose negligence, the accident occurred. It is wrong to say that driver of pickup vehicle No. MP-05-G-6188 had hit by driving the vehicle speedily. It is not correct that he is not deposing correctly in the Court. It is not correct that he has sided with the accused.

13. Thus, testimony of prosecution witness Golu @ Paramshukh (PW-7) nowhere indicate that petitioner/accused was driving pickup vehicle No. MP-05-G-6188 rashly or negligently and it is his negligence/mistake, which caused the accident. It is also important to note that prosecution has not declared this witness hostile on above points, therefore, prosecution is bound by the testimony of this witness.

14. Further, complainant Rakesh Rai (PW-1) has deposed in his examination-in-chief that driver of pickup vehicle No. MP-05-G-6188 was driving the vehicle rashly and speedily and the driver of pickup vehicle was intoxicated. Accident had occurred on account of negligence of driver of pickup vehicle. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that speed of pickup vehicle was approximately 60-

70. Pickup has hit his vehicle slightly. He cannot tell that Ashok Rai had said to Golu @ Paramshukh (PW-7) that accident has occurred on account of his negligence. On record, there is no evidence to show that at the time of accident, petitioner was driving Pick Up in intoxicated condition.

15. Prosecution witness Damodar has stated in his examination-in-

chief is that driver of pickup was driving vehicle very fast and accident occurred on account of mistake of driver of pickup vehicle. Prosecution witness Lakhan Rai has stated in his examination-in-chief that accident has occurred on account of petitioner Man Singh's mistake. It is correct that driver of pickup vehicle has hit their vehicle by driving pickup speedily and negligently. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that place of incident was plain road and thereafter, there was turning. Testimonies of prosecution witness Damodar and Lakhan Rai etc. reveal that both the vehicles have collided from the side and there is no head-on collision.

16. M.S. Bhatti (PW-12) has investigated the incident and prepared spot map Ex. P/4 but perusal of spot map Ex. P/4 reveals that therein, it has not been specifically shown that on which part/side of the road, accident occurred, though in description column, it is mentioned that driver of pickup vehicle No. MP-05-G-6188 caused the accident by crossing on the wrong side but this fact has not been mentioned by any of the prosecution witnesses in their court testimonies, especially driver of Gama vehicle Golu @ Parmsukh, i.e. no prosecution witness has deposed that accident occurred on account of fact as mentioned in site map Ex. P/4 as above.

17. It is well settled that just because an accident has occurred, it cannot be said that a vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently and similarly just on the basis of speed also, it cannot be inferred that the vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently. Similarly, if a witness deposes that vehicle was being driven speedily/negligently/rashly but without specifying/stating the facts to show that how/on what grounds, he is stating that vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently, then,

on the basis of such testimony, it can not be inferred/said that the vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently. In the instant case also, in their depositions, prosecution witnesses have not stated specifically the facts on the basis which it can be concluded that petitioner caused the accident by driving his vehicle rashly or negligently. In the present case, it is apparent that two vehicles have collided from the side.

18. Thus, there is no legal & cogent evidence to convincingly prove that it is the petitioner who was driving his vehicle rashly or negligently & on account of petitioner's negligence, accident has occurred and there are no facts on record to draw any such conclusion.

19. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, in this Court's considered opinion, learned Court below has drawn conclusions with respect to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner without any legal evidence. From evidence on record, it is not established at all that present accident has occurred on account of rash or negligent driving by the petitioner. Therefore, in this Court's opinion, learned appellate Court has committed material illegality/perversity in convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 of IPC.

20. Therefore, in view of above, the revision petition filed by petitioner is allowed and impugned judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed in Cr.A. No. 20/2019 by learned appellate Court, Second Additional Sessions judge, Pipariya, District Narmadapuram, is set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the offences under Section 304-A, 279 and 337 of IPC and fine amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him.

21. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to learned trial court/

learned appellate Court i.e. Second Additional Sessions judge, Pipariya District Narmadapuram & concerned jail authorities for information & necessary action.

22. Present revision petition is disposed off accordingly.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE L.R.

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2023.09.13 18:06:51 +05'30'