AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, by special leave, Mr. R.C. Prasad, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, challenges the order dated September 30, 1966 of the Patna High Court, dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 1378 of 1966 filed against the appellant's conviction by the two subordinate Courts for offences Under Sections 279 and 337 and 304A, Penal Code, 1860. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment for an offence Under Section 304A. He was also sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences Under Section 279 and 337 I.P.C. But the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was as follows. The appellant was the driver of truck No. BRA 8735. On the morning of January 10, 1962, he was driving the truck, when a jeep bearing number BRM 1993 driven by P.W. 4, was coming from the opposite direction from Patna to Motihari. It was alleged that the appellant was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the truck hitting the jeep violently at about 6.45 a.m. on that day. The jeep was overturned. One Indra Rajwar, who was the Khalasi of the jeep was thrown out from the jeep and he died then and there on the spot. Shri Devbarat Shastri, his wife Samundra Devi, and their two daughters Purnima Sinha and Chanda Devi, who were the other occupants of the jeep sustained very serious injuries. The truck was also damaged and stopped at a considerable distance. Sri N.K. Chandani, Colliery Manager of Jharia, who happened to pass that way in his car, on seeing the injured took them to the police station and after giving a report arranged to send them to the Patna General Hospital for treatment. But Devbarat Singh and Sumundra Devi died on the way to hospital. Dr. G.S. Verma, P.W. 1, who conducted the post mortem on the three dead bodies, has acted very serious injuries sustained as a result of the accident. Treatment was also given to the two injured Purnima Sinha and Chandra Devi.

(3.) The appellant denied that he was driving the truck at the material time. He also denied that he was driving the truck rashly and negligently. He further pleaded that it was a case of accident on account of the visibility being poor due to heavy fog and therefore he was not responsible for the accident.