Citation : 2001 Local Law (CG) 49
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the conviction of a woman accused of causing death by negligence in a 1994 road accident in Raipur. Justice R.S. Garg delivered the order while allowing the criminal revision petition filed by the accused, who had been found guilty under Sections 304A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The woman, identified as Manju Baradia, had been accused of driving her Fiat NE car rashly and hitting a scooter near the D.E.O. office in Raipur on September 9, 1994. The scooter rider, Sanjeev, sustained fatal injuries, while the pillion rider was also hurt. The trial court had convicted Baradia in 1999, sentencing her to one and a half years’ rigorous imprisonment for causing death by negligence and six months for destruction of evidence. The Sessions Court later upheld the conviction but reduced the sentences to one year and three months respectively.
However, Justice Garg found multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that the identity of the driver had not been properly established. The key witnesses, including the deceased’s maternal uncle, failed to mention in the initial police report that a woman was driving the car. The Court observed that no test identification parade was conducted, and even the Dehati Nalishi (initial complaint) did not name the accused.
“The identity of the accused, the manner of the accident, and the alleged rashness or negligence were not proved beyond reasonable doubt,” the Court held. It further observed that non-examination of the pillion rider and non-seizure of the gas cylinder—which the pillion rider was reportedly carryingseriously weakened the prosecution’s case.
Justice Garg also remarked that the mere absence of a permanent driving license does not automatically prove rash or negligent driving. Citing earlier judgments, he explained that “the fact of accident alone cannot lead to a presumption of guilt,” emphasizing that the prosecution must show gross or culpable negligence to sustain a conviction under Section 304A.
The Court criticized the lower courts for relying on the principle of res ipsa loquitur which allows inference of negligence from the circumstances of the accident stating that it does not apply in criminal cases where the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
After reviewing the entire evidence, the High Court concluded that neither of the two supposed eyewitnesses could have actually seen the accident happen, and that no direct proof existed linking the accused to rash driving. “There is no evidence on record to show that the driver of the vehicle was driving rashly or negligently or at an excessive speed,” the Court said.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of all charges. The Court ordered that her bail bonds be discharged.
The judgment serves as a reminder that in criminal cases involving road accidents, prosecution must prove guilt with clear and convincing evidence mere assumptions or incomplete investigations are insufficient for conviction.
CaseDetails : Criminal Revision No. 120/2001, Manju Baradia vs. State of Chhattisgarh (18.06.2001)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shri Prashant Mishra, Adv. For State: Shri Deep Kesharwani, Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 201; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 304A; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 338
Cases Referred:
State of M.P. v. Bhawanesh Kumar, AIR 1958 MP 205; R.V. Batteman, (1925) 19 Criminal Appeal Reporter 8 (B); Bhalchandra and another v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 1319; Mrs. Shakila Khader etc. v. Nausher Gama and another, AIR 1975 SC 1324; Mahadeo Hari Lokre v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 221; Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848; N.K.V.Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumani Ammal and others etc., AIR 1980 SC 1354; Mohammed Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 2000 (8) SC 317; Burke v. Manchester, Sheffield & Loncolnshire Rly. Co., (1870) 22 LT 442; Moore v. Fox (R) & Sons, (1956) 1 QB 596; Russel v. London & South-Western Rly. Co., (1908) 24 TLR 548; Andrews v. Director Public Prosecutions, (1937) 2 All ER 552, 1937 AC 576
======
आपराधिक मामला – अभियुक्त की पहचान – भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (धारा 201 और 304-ए):
आवेदिका पर आरोप था कि उसने अपनी कार लापरवाही और लापरवाहीपूर्वक चलाते हुए एक दुर्घटना की, जिससे एक व्यक्ति की मृत्यु हो गई। ट्रायल कोर्ट ने आवेदिका को धारा 304-ए सहपठित धारा 201 के तहत दोषी ठहराया और सजा दी। अपील में सत्र न्यायालय ने दोषसिद्धि बरकरार रखी, लेकिन सजा में कमी की। इसके विरुद्ध आवेदिका ने उच्च न्यायालय में पुनरीक्षण याचिका दायर की।
निर्णय: इस मामले में न्यायालय ने पाया कि अभियोजन यह साबित करने में असफल रहा कि दुर्घटना के समय कार चलाने वाली व्यक्ति वही आवेदिका थी। गवाहों के बयान विरोधाभासी थे और उनकी उपस्थिति भी संदिग्ध थी। किसी गवाह ने यह स्पष्ट नहीं कहा कि दुर्घटना के समय कार आवेदिका ही चला रही थी। अभियोजन यह भी सिद्ध नहीं कर सका कि वाहन तेज गति या लापरवाही से चलाया गया था।
अतः न्यायालय ने माना कि अभियोजन आरोप सिद्ध करने में असफल रहा और अभियुक्त की पहचान साबित नहीं कर सका। इसलिए धारा 304-ए के तहत दोषसिद्धि रद्द की गई और पुनरीक्षण याचिका स्वीकृत की गई।
