Chandrabhan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Applicant has filed this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.05.2019 passed by the appellate

Court/Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Cr. A No.74/2018, affirmed the judgment dated 27.03.2018 passed by JMFC Burhanpur in Cr. Trial

No.1138/2015 whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section, 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo

six months RI and fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act fine of Rs.500/- along with default stipulations.

Prosecution story, in short is that, Arun Tayade (PW-2) hired a crop cutting machine (Kutti Machine) along with tractor of applicant to cut the

Bundle of maize crop and victim Kailash (PW-3) was working as a labour. The applicant started the machine and the injured Kailash inserted the crop

of maize into running cutting machine, but the applicant insisted him to work fast on account of that, he was working speedily and accidentally his hand

went deep inside and Cutting machine cut the finger of Kailash. He was immediately shifted to the Hospital. The owner of the field Arun Tayade

lodged a report in Police Station Shahpur. Ajabrao Nikam (PW-6) Head Constable, lodged an FIR and registered a Crime No.100/2015. On the basis

of MLC report and other documents collected during investigation found that applicant who was running the Cutting machine without safety measures

resulted in accident and tractor that used for running the Cutting machine was not having any insurance as well as other papers.

After investigation filed a charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 387, 338 of IPC and under Sections 104/177

and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act, before the Court of JMFC Burhanpur. The Court of JMFC stated the particulars of the offence against the

applicant under Section 287, 338 of IPC and under Section 146 read with Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act and after recording the evidence and

hearing of the parties delivered a judgment on 27.03.2018 and convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 287 and 338 of IPC

and jointly sentenced under Section 338 of IPC to undergo six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation and under Section 146/196 of

the Motor Vehicles Act and fine of Rs.500/- along with default stipulation.

Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the applicant has preferred the appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge Burhanpur registered as

Cr. A No.74/2018. Learned appellate Court after hearing both the parties delivered a judgment on 28.05.2019 confirmed the conviction and sentence

passed by the trial Court against the applicant.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court affirming the conviction and sentence, the applicant preferred this revision on the ground

that the learned both Court below committed an error in appreciating the evidence. There are lot of contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of

the witnesses. The Court has not considered the evidence in proper perspective and pray to set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the

applicant of the charges.

Having heard both the counsel.

Perused the evidence recorded before the trial Court. Pandrang (PW-1) Head Constable is examiner of the machine and tractor and found that

both are in working condition. (PW-2) Arun lodged an FIR. This witness hired the tractor and cutting machine, Kailash (PW-3)/injured is a labour was

working in Cutting machine. This witness categorically stated that the applicant was running a machine with the help of tractor and victim Kailash was

inserting the bundle of maize crop in the machine, but applicant Chandrabhan insisting Kailash (PW-3) to work fast, inserted the bundle of maize inside

the cutting machine, accidentally Kailash inserted the hand in deep and on account of that, Cutting machine cut the finger of Kailash (PW-3). This

witness nowhere stated that what was the negligence of the applicant. It is reflected from the statement of this witness that applicant was insisting the

victim Kailash for work speedily.

Victim Kailash (PW-3) stated that the applicant is having machine which cut the crop into small pieces and this witness went to work on the cutting

machine. The applicant said, to work fast we have to go for the another place, then this witness started work fast and his hand accidentally inserted

deep in the machine.

On perusal of the whole statement of this witness it is reflected while doing the work fast, he could not keep away the hand from machine, then

accident happened. In the same way, Rajendra (PW-4) also stated in the same way. None of the witnesses stated that what safety measures should

be adopted by the applicant. Statements of the witnesses reveals that applicant running cutting machine and injured was working on that machine and

while doing work fast, he accidentally inserted his hand deeply in the machine.

Considering all these circumstances and the evidence of the witnesses this Court not found anywhere that the prosecution proved that what type

of safety measures have to be adopted by the applicant, that had not been adopted by the applicant saying to work fast is not within the purview of

negligent act.

On the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court neither ingredient of 287 of IPC nor ingredient of Section 338 of IPC

is made out against the applicant. Ajab Rao (PW-6) Investigating Officer nowhere stated that he asked for the papers of the tractor from the

applicant, but he failed to produce the papers. None of the witnesses stated that applicant was using the tractor without any insurance as well as other

papers.

In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court find that both the Courts below committed an error in convicting the applicant for the offence. This

is a fit case to invoke the revisional power.

Consequently, the revision is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below against the applicant is hereby set

aside. The applicant is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case and set him free. No order as to the costs.