ORDER
Ajit Singh, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 14-8-1998 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 46/1997 by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, whereby he has confirmed the conviction and sentences of the applicant as passed by the Trial Court.
The applicant stands convicted and sentenced by the Appellate Court as under:-
Conviction SentenceUnder Section 304A of the Six months simple imprisonmentIndian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 150/- or, indefault of payment of fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.Under Section 337 of the Indian Two months simplePenal Code imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- or, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.The substantive jail sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. According to the prosecution case on 16-11-1994 at about 8.00 a.m. the applicant while driving his bus rashly and negligently dashed the same against a jeep which was coming from the opposite direction. At that time the bus was going on the main road from Seoni Malwa towards Shivpur and the accident took place at the intersection of three roads, of which the third road goes towards Village Miaugaon. At the point of intersection, the main Seoni Malwa-Shivpur road has a curve. The dashed jeep was being driven by Rakesh (P.W. 2) and it was going towards Miaugaon from Shivpur. Laxmi Bai (P.W. 10), Varsha and Prem Narayan were also travelling in that jeep. The left side of the bus had dashed against the middle portion of the left side of the jeep. That portion of the jeep was badly damaged. Due to the impact of the bus the jeep was thrown into a pit. Prem Narayan succumbed to the injuries received in the accident. Laxmi Bai (P.W. 10) and Varsha survived the accident but had sustained some injuries. Head Constable Ramdas (P.W. 2) was travelling in the bus of applicant. He gave the information about the accident at Police Station, Shivpur. Station Officer Upmanyu Saxena (P.W. 12) inspected the place of accident and registered a criminal case against the applicant. Mechanic Devi Singh (P.W. 4) examined the bus. On examination he found that the body of bus on the conductor's side was damaged and its fan belt was also broken. His report is Ex. P-3. The map, Ex. P-11, of the place of accident was prepared by Ramesh (P.W. 7).
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, without disputing the accident between the bus of applicant and jeep of Rakesh (P.W. 3), has argued that there is no evidence on record to hold that the applicant was driving the bus rashly and negligently. He has, therefore, prayed for the acquittal of the applicant. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has vehemently defended the conviction and sentences of the applicant as passed by the Courts below.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence and materials on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the applicant beyond all reasonable doubt and as such this revision deserves to be allowed.
5. Head Constable Ramdas (P.W. 2) was travelling in the bus at the time of accident. He has admitted in his cross- examination that he was sitting on the third or fourth seat behind the applicant and did not complain about his driving. He has also not ruled out the possibility of the driver of the jeep being negligent at the time of accident. Rakesh (P.W. 3) has testified that he had crossed the intersection of three roads while going towards Miaugaon when the applicant dashed the bus on the middle portion of the left side of his jeep. That middle portion of the jeep was badly damaged. Report, Ex. P-3, of Mechanic Devi Singh (P.W. 4) reveals that the body of the bus on the conductor's side was damaged. It, therefore, appears that the left side of the bus collided with the middle left portion of the jeep. This was possible because the accident took place at the intersection of the three roads for which the drivers of both the vehicles were apparently negligent and misjudged each other. Had Rakesh (P.W. 3) actually crossed the intersection, the bus coming on the road from Seoni Malwa could not have possibly dashed his jeep. Rakesh (P.W. 3), only to justify his part of the negligence, has testified that he had crossed the intersection of the three roads when the bus dashed his jeep. The police have also not seized the driving licence of Rakesh (P.W. 3). It is, therefore, not very clear that Rakesh (P.W. 3) knew proper driving. Moreover, the place of accident, as shown in the spot map, is just contrary to the evidence of Rakesh (P.W. 3). In the spot map the place of accident shows is much before the intersection of the three roads. This contradiction regarding the place of accident also creates a doubt on the prosecution story. Laxmi Bai (P.W. 10) was sitting inside the jeep. She could not have possibly seen as to how the accident actually took place.
6. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find it safe to hold that the accident happened because the applicant was driving the bus rashly and negligently within the meaning of Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code which requires a much higher degree of negligence than ordinary negligence. The conviction and sentences of the applicant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He need not surrender.
The revision is allowed.