BADRI PRASAD TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants/accused have directed this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.RC. being aggrieved by the order date 4.5.2010 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge Rewa, in Sessions Trial No. 276/09 framing charges against each of them for the offence under Section 304-11 of IPC (for seven counts).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that, on 24.5.2006 at Police Station Sohagi, the information regarding unnatural death of seven persons was received, on which under Sections 174 of Cr.P.C the inquest intimations bearing nos. 5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11 of 2006 were registered. In their enquiry by R.B. Sharma, the then Station House, Officer of such Police Station., it was revealed that on the river of Tamas at Teothar, a Pipa Pul (temporary bridge) was constructed by the Contractor Shrikant Tiwari under the guidance, supervision and observation of the Officers of the Public Works Department namely; the applicants Badri Prasad Tiwari, Jagnnath Tiwari, posted as Sub-Engineers and Ramanand Tiwari, the time keeper, deputed to look after the construction and maintenance of such pipa bridge but in the lack of their devotion in performing the duties to look after the construction of such bridge, with their connivance the aforesaid contractor made the alleged Pipapul by the material of lower quality and contrary to the prescribed norms. Resultantly, on the aforesaid date 24.6.2006, on passing the alleged jeep bearing registration no. MP-17-B-4691, having the various passengers driven by co-accused Pramod Kumar Gupta in a rash and negligent manner, on breaking such Pipa bridge feel down in the river and seven persons out of the persons traveling in such jeep had died with downing death. Initially, a crime for the offence of Section 304-A of I.P.C. was registered against Pramod Kumar Gupta, the driver of the jeep. But in further investigation, the applicants Badri Prasad Tiwari, Jaggnnath Tiwari and also the Ramanand Tiwari, C.K. Verma, Hari Sumiran Dwivedi, Baidyanath Singh and the contractor Shrikant Tiwari were also found involved in the alleged crime. Besides this the Magisterial enquiry of the incident was also held. In such enquiry, it was established that the aforesaid bridge was not constructed with proper and specified material as such the lower quality iron, guarder and the wood and it's sleepers contrary to the prescribed norms and standard were used in making such bridge, and without verifying such position and completing all formalities the traffic was started on it by the applicants as administrative Officers of the PWD and due to their such act the alleged incident had taken place. In such enquiry, it was also found that the aforesaid administrative Officers of the PWD have not placed the proper sign board at both side of the bridge showing the directions of security norms which was also one of the reasons of happening the alleged incident. Simultaneously the co-accused Pramod Kumar Gupta the Jeep driver, was also found to be negligent in driving the alleged vehicle in which the deceased were traveling. Inter-alia the main cause of the alleged accident was found to be the lack of performing the duties by the applicants and some co-accused in looking after the construction of such bridge when the same was being constructed with lower quality material by the contractor Shrikant Tiwari and also the negligence of such Officers towards their duty subsequent to construction of such bridge in it's maintenance, as the alleged road of the place of incident being very busy road having the huge traffic was required proper maintenance. At the time of making the construction of the bridge with lower quality material, the applicants being Offices of PWD and other accused, except Pramod Kumar Gupta, the driver of the jeep, had knowledge of their Act that due to such act they are creating the situation to cause the death of any human being passing on such pipa bridge. Accordingly, in investigation on establishing the prima facie ingredients of the offence of Sections 304-11,120-B and 34 of I.P.C., against the applicants and the co- accused mentioned above, they all were charge-sheeted for the same.

(3.) HAVING heard at length to the applicants' counsel on admission, keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers of the charge- sheet placed with the police report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and also the case laws cited by the counsel. In the available circumstances before proceeding further to consider the submission of the applicants' counsel as ready reference, I deem fit to reproduce the provision of Section 299 along with one illustration of it and of Section 304-A of I.P.C, because this Court has to consider the question involved in this revision in the light of such provision of I.P.C. The same are is read as under:-