[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Kumar Mewade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36886
1 CRR-991-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 991 of 2015
NARENDRA KUMAR MEWADE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance
Shri Manuraj Singh - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Rahul Solanki appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Heard on: 08.12.2025
Delivered ON: 15.12.2025
ORDER
This criminal revision is preferred under Section 397 read with section
401 of Cr.P.C, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgement dated 04.08.2015
passed in CRA No.168/2014 by Additional sessions Judge, District Rajgarh
arising out of the judgment dated 26.05.2014 in RCT No.20/2012 by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh whereby the revision petitioner/accused has
been convicted under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced for two years R.I.
with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of one month R.I.
2. Facts in brief of the case are that a crime No.440/2010 was
registered at Police Station Rajgarh District Rajgarh alleging that the revision
petitioner/accused was driving the motorcycle bearing registration no.MP-
39-MC-9627 in rash and negligent manner on 14.11.2010 and caused falling
off of pillion rider Uma who succumbed to injuries.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36886
2 CRR-991-2015
3. Revision petitioner/accused was put to trial under Section 304-A of
IPC. He abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
4. To bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as
06 witnesses including eye-witness Sagar (PW-1), Dhapubai (PW-2), Dr.
P.K. Jain (PW-3), Head Constable Rajkumar Singh (PW-4), Babloo @
Mohd. Aarif (PW-5) and Head Constable Devilal (PW-6) who wsd posted at
the time of incident at Kotwali, Rajgarh.
5. In examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, 1973, the revision
petitioner/accused either denied or expressed ignorance regarding all the
facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the
revision petitioner/accused and sentenced him as mentioned in para no.1 of
the judgment, above. The revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal and
the same was also dismissed.
7. Challenging the conviction as well as the sentence, this revision
petition is preferred on the ground that the testimony of PW-1 Sagar, who is
a eye-witness and son of the deceased Uma, does not prove the rash and
negligent act of the revision petitioner. Otherwise also, it is not possible to
drive in speed at the rural road. The revision petitioner has no criminal
antecedents and he ought to have been extended the benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.
8. Heard.
9. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that
there is no ground for interference either in conviction or in the sentence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36886
3 CRR-991-2015
10. Perused the record.
11. Sagar PW-1 is the eye-witness of the incident who was also riding
on the motorcycle driven by the revision petitioner. As per Sargar PW-1, he
and his mother were going to Jalpa Mata Temple for holy darshan on the
motorcycle driven by the revision petitioner. They started journey from
Khilchipur and he was sitting on the motorcycle in the front side and his
mother was sitting rear side. At 6:30 PM, the motorcycle reached near the
village Phookhedi and his mother fell down from the motorcycle. At the that
time, the motorcycle was being driven @ 80KMP (kilometer per hour) and
after falling from the bike, she turned 2-3 rounds. His mother sustained
injuries in the head. His mother was taken to Rajgarh District Hospital in a
van where his mother died. Dr. P.K. Jain PW-3 posted at District Hospital
Rajgarh, has conducted the autopsy on 15.11.2010 and he found that
occipital bone of Uma was fractured and she was died due to hemorrhage due
to effusion of heavy blood and contusion in brain and fracture in skull is also
to be seen.
12. The learned trial Court has recorded the finding that at the time of
incident, rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner/ accused is
proved, as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment. Further it is recorded that
another reason of falling of Uma from the motorcyle is not on record. The
learned appellate Court affirmed the finding of conviction as mentioned in
para no.1 of the judgment with further assigning the reason that if the road
was in dilapidated condition than the revision petitioner should adopt extra
precautions.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36886
4 CRR-991-2015
13. The evidence on record does not mention that either the
motorcycle fell down or was dashed with another vehicle or the child rider of
the vehicle also fell down. Merely because, the vehicle was being driven at
high speed, does not show that the driving was rash and negligent, as "high
speed" or "over speed" both are referred to as relative terms. It is for the
prosecution to bring on record materials to establish as to what meant by
"high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. The statement of the
child PW-1 that revision petitioner/accused pushed his mother by leg, is not
reliable because the person who is driving the motorcycle is not supposed to
push the pillion rider. Against the prosecution case, he introduced the new
theory that revision petitioner was in intoxicated state. This fact does not
found proved from the evidence on record and both the courts below have
also not relied upon this evidence.
14..The findings of learned trial Court as affirmed by the appellate
Court are recorded ignoring the para no.6 of the statement of Investigation
Officer Devilal PW-6. Falling off pillion rider when the motorcycle is not
dashed by any vehicle and it is also not the case that the motorcycle also fell
down or dis-balanced or the driver or other person on the motorcycle also not
fell down from the motorcycle, does not indicate that the motorcycle was
being driven rashly or negligently.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed and the
judgement dated 04.08.2015 passed in CRA No.168/2014 by Additional
sessions Judge, District Rajgarh as well as the judgment dated 26.05.2014
passed in RCT No.20/2012 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36886
5 CRR-991-2015
whereby the revision petitioner/accused has been convicted under Section
304-A of IPC and sentenced for two years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation of one month R.I, stand set aside. The appellant is
acquitted from the charges under section 304-A of IPC. His bail bonds
stands discharged. The fine amount if any deposited by the revision
petitioner shall be returned.
16. A copy of this order alongwith the record be sent back to the
learned trial Court concerned for necessary information.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
