TAJESH SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was found guilty of an offence under Section 279/337 I.P.C. as also under Section 304-A I.P.C. and was imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. I may note that the trial Court by its order dated 23rd of March, 1979 accepted the proposition that the petitioner is entitled to probation but did not grant it as it felt that it will amount to subjecting him to a restraint for some years. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed this order by its order dated 24th of August, 1979.

(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the legality and the propriety of the sentence as according to him any fair evaluation of the evidence recorded in this case would prove that the petitioner is not responsible for any rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of Nihal Chand deceased who was involved in this accident. In fact, Mr. Lai's attempt throughout his arguments was that the prosecution evidence particularly of P.W.1. Mr. Bhatia who is the star witness is consistent only with the stand of the accused to show that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of any rash and negligent act resulting in this accident.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, I may make a reference to the stand taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His stand is that he was proceeding on a normal speed and he found the deceased stopping near the verge of the road and then he suddenly started running fast to cross the road. According to him, in spite of his best efforts the deceased was hit and thereby resulting m this accident. In the light of this stand of the petitioner, the matter falls within a short compass inasmuch as one has only to evaluate the evidence particularly of P.W.1, and to find out whether this accident occurred as a result of the reckless and negligent act