Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29675
1 CRR-2072-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2072 of 2025
RAJESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally at motion hearing
stage.
This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section
397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 28.04.2025 passed in Cr.A.No.12/2022 by the 2 nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District- Narmadapuram whereby the
Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 14.11.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.440/2016 by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Sohagpur District- Narmadapuram whereby the applicant was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 337(11) of
IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two months with fine of Rs.1100/- and
under Section 304-A(16 count) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years
with fine of Rs.800/- with default stipulations.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29675
2 CRR-2072-2025
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no rash or
negligence driving had been done by the applicant. The bus turned in the curve
and this unfortunate incident took place. The applicant was driving the vehicle
with full caution and he also suffered the injury. Most of the injured persons died
because bus was having only one gate and the injured persons were trapped in the
bus and could not be taken out within time, hence, no case of rash or negligence
driving is made out.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that prosecution
witnesses themselves have not supported that the applicant was driving vehicle
with rash or negligent manner. Prosecution has failed to prove the liability of the
applicant but the trial Court and Appellate Court have not considered these
aspects, hence, committed an illegality. Hence, revision be allowed and applicant
be acquitted from all the charges.
4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in this incident, 16
persons had died and 11 persons had suffered the injuries and from the
circumstances itself, the negligence of the applicant is proved as the vehicle was
being driven in such rash or negligent manner that bus left the road and dashed
with the tree standing by side of the road and then turned down and all the
passengers have either suffered injuries or died. The trial Court and the Appellate
Court have rightly convicted the applicant, hence, no case for interference is made
out.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. As per Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1), the prosecution case is that on
15.12.2015, the passengers of the vehicle including complainant Manoj Pareta
(PW-1) were traveling in bus bearing registration No.MP-09-FA-9597 along with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29675
3 CRR-2072-2025
their relatives. On 15.12.2015 at 6:00 am when bus reached Hoshangabad,
Pipariya near Langha Bamori on Sohagpur turning, driver started driving rashly
and negligently and overturned the vehicle, 16 persons died and other persons
suffered injuries. Police and nearby public came and had taken out the passengers
from the bus where 16 persons were reported to be died and injured persons were
admitted in the Hospital immediately.
7. The prosecution witness Manoj Pareta (PW-1) has specifically stated that
on 15.12.2015 at 6-6:30 am, when bus bearing registration No.MP-09-AF-9597
reached Hoshangabad, Pipariya road near Langha Bamori, the applicant, who was
driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, all of a sudden, the bus passed on the
speed breaker and left the road and after that collided with the tree standing near
by the road. Passengers who were sitting in the bus, he and driver also suffered the
injuries and 16 persons were died.
8. Raju Verma (PW-2) has also supported this fact that the applicant was
driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. When the bus reached near spot
and crossed the speed breaker, it got jerk and as a result overturned. Passengers
who were travelling in the bus, died instantly and some died during the treatment,
some passengers suffered the injuries and he also suffered the injury.
9. In the cross-examination of these witnesses, it has not been brought that
this was an accident or due to any technical error or due to fog or any other reasons
that the driver could not have seen the speed breaker.
10. Spot map (Ex.P/21) proved by Devendra Kumhare (PW-20), shows that
it was a curve and before the curve there was a speed breaker and the bus when
crossed the speed breaker, overturned and dashed with the Neem tree standing by
the road, though the distance of the tree from the road has not been mentioned in
spot map (Ex.P/21), but, it is clear that there was speed breaker, if the driver was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29675
4 CRR-2072-2025
conscious enough, he would have taken the precaution and slows down the bus,
this accident would have been averted. Therefore, in my opinion, it is clear case,
where the principle of "res ipsa loquitur " is applicable. The bus when came in the
contact of the speed breaker, jumped and the driver could not control it and left the
road and dashed the tree standing near the road. The driver failed to prove that he
was vigilant enough and driving vehicle with care and caution.
11. The impact of the incident, itself is clear by the fact that 16 persons died
instantly and 11 persons got injuries. The trial Court and Appellate Court have
properly considered all these facts, hence, no case for interference is made out.
Conviction and sentence passed against the applicant is legal and no illegality,
impropriety or perversity is found. But looking to the provisions of Section 31 of
Cr.P.C., it is directed that all the jail sentence imposed upon the applicant shall run
concurrently.
12. With the above modification, the revision petition is dismissed being
devoid of merits.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
AT
