Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baban vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27589
1 CRR-686-2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 25 th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 686 of 2000
BABAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Garima Tiwari - Amicus Curiae for the applicant.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 10.05.2000 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Betul, District Betul in Criminal Appeal No.43/1999 arising out of judgment dated
23.04.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Betul, District Betul
(M.P.) in Criminal Case No.192/1997 affirming the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the trial court whereby the applicant has been
convicted under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to undergo S.I. for two years with fine of Rs.300/- and S.I. for six months with
fine of Rs.200/- respectively, with default stipulations.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecution case
in nutshell is that on 29.05.1997 at 6:30 PM, the applicant was driving a tractor
along with the trolley in which passengers were sitting as a barati. The tractor
trolley overturned and the persons sitting on them got the injuries and one Jhuniya
Bai died. On that basis, the applicant has been tried and convicted and sentenced
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27589
2 CRR-686-2000
for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC.
3. In the FIR, it has not been mentioned that what was his negligence and
rashness by which the accident had occurred and the independent witnesses have
also not clearly stated that what was his negligence or rashness by which the
incident took place.
4. The prosecution witnesses have stated that the trolley overturned and the
persons sitting in that trolley as a passengers got the injuries and one Jhuniya Bai
died. There is an improvement in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, they
said that when the tractor failed to ride over the ascending slope, the driver jumped
from the driver seat and ran away and that was the reason that incident had
happened.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that there is no
other evidence and the Appellate Court has concluded that due to passengers that
were sitting in the trolley, the tractor was unable to ride over the slope and due to
that reason, incident took place but this is not the case of prosecution and
submitted that both the Courts have wrongly convicted the applicant for the
offence punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer
and has submitted that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable
doubt and there is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the trial
Court as well as Appellate Court, hence, no case for interference is made out.
7. Heard the parties and perused the record.
8. Lal Singh (PW-3) who is the injured in the incident has stated that the
applicant was driving the tractor and the tractor was on ascending slope/height and
tractor overturned as he reached on that, he suffered the injuries in his right thigh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27589
3 CRR-686-2000
and Jhuniya Bai died as she was pressed under the trolley. Seven persons suffered
the injuries. This witness has also stated that tractor was going in the slow speed
but the incident had happened.
9. Dashan (PW-4) has also stated that the tractor was driven in the slow
speed but when he went on the height, tractor overturned and he suffered the
injuries and Jhuniya Bai died.
10. Witness Basant (PW-5), Sukhram (PW-6) and Kumari Ramwati (PW-8)
who are the injured in the case have stated that the tractor overturned when he
reached on the height and Jhuniya Bai died but the witnesses Basant (PW-5),
Sukhram (PW-6) have stated that the tractor overturned as the driver jumped from
the tractor, otherwise incident would not have happened but this is not the
prosecution case that the applicant jumped from the tractor when he was not able
to control the vehicle. The simple case of the prosecution was that the vehicle was
being driven in the rash and negligent manner but from the above statement, it is
clear that the passengers were sitting in the trolley and when the tractor went on
the height, the tractor slipped and was rolling back and overturned.
11. Only on the basis that the applicant was not sufficiently skilled to
control the vehicle or he failed to control the vehicle, when no specific role has
been assigned and it is not the case of the prosecution that he was not having the
proper licence then only on the basis that he allow the passengers to ride on the
tractor trolley, it cannot be presumed that this act itself is a rash and negligent.
12. Looking all these aspects, it is clear that the trial Court as well as
Appellate Court has not considered the evidence in the proper perspective and
convicted the applicant in the general statement that the tractor has overturned and
some persons have injured and one lady died. But until the rashness and
negligence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, no one can be held liable for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27589
4 CRR-686-2000
rashness and negligence and no one can be convicted for the offence causing
injuries to any person by rash or negligent act or causing the death of a person by
rash and negligent act, hence, in this case, the prosecution utterly failed to prove
rashness and negligence of the applicant, hence, the revision is allowed.
13. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court is hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted from all the
charges.
14. With the copy of this order, the record be returned to the trial Court as
well as Appellant Court.
15. With the above terms, the Criminal Revision is allowed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
AT
