Mangali vs State of U.P.

P.K. Jain, J.—List has been revised. None appears for the parties and perused the material on record. Revisionist Mangali was convicted by the Munsif Magistrate (Court No. 5), Jhansi u/s 304A, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1984 preferred by the revisionist was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special/Economic Offences, Jhansi, vide judgment and order dated 18.8.1984. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was affirmed.

From perusal of the memo of revision, it appears that the revision is pressed on two grounds. Firstly that the revisionist was not named in the First Information Report nor any test identification proceedings were held and hence the identity of the revisionist as being driver of the truck which caused the accident is not established and secondly in the First Information Report, the number of truck which caused the accident was given as U.P.G. 6311 whereas the truck which the revisionist was driving was U.P.G. 3611.

As regards the second contention, the trial court as well as appellate court held that the witnesses examined by the prosecution categorically stated that there was a mistake in mentioning the number of truck while lodging the first information report. Witnesses had corrected the mistake in their statements. Revisionist accused in his statement before trial court at the time of framing of charge admitted that or 23.6.1982 at about 11 a.m. he was driver of tuck No. U.P.G. 3611. Hence the concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below is that the revisionist was driving truck No. U.P.G. 3611 and the accident was caused by truck No. U.P.G. 3611 and not by truck No. 6311. The finding of the courts below in this regard cannot be said to be perverse and, therefore, cannot be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

As regards the first contention, it is true that the revisionist is not nominated in the first information report and he was not put up for test identification. There is, however, ample evidence on record to establish the fact that the revisionist was driving the truck in question at the time of accident. Courts below have taken into consideration the statement of revisionist before framing of the charge wherein he has categorically admitted that on 23.6.1982 at 11.30 a.m. he was driving truck No. U.P.G. 3611 at the place of occurrence. Besides this, an application (Ex. Kha-1) was proved by the revisionist. This application was moved by owner of the truck in which also it was specifically stated that truck driver, namely, Mangali alias Mangalo was driving the truck on 23.6.1982 at the time of accident. The evidence clearly establishes that the revisionist was driving the truck No. U.P.G. 3611 at the time of accident. I do not think that the courts below have committed error in accepting the statement of the revisionist before framing of the charge and the statement contained in Ex. Kha-1. Revision is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The revision is, hereby dismissed. The revisionist was released on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Stay order dated 22.8.1984 is vacated.