IN RE : CHELLIAH NADAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner (Chelliah Nadar) seeks to revise his conviction for an offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT is unnecessary for me to reiterate all the facts proved by P.Ws. 1 to 8. Suffice it for me to notice that, according to the evidence of P.W. 3, the revision petitioner (accused) was coming ahead in a bus, that he was coming at a good speed and that he dashed against his (P.W. 3's) bullock cart. The bullock met with instantaneous death at the spot as a result of the terrible impact on it. It is true that there had been a head -on collision and the injury sustained by the bullock had resulted in its death. I also take into consideration the fact that the road was a wide one with the result that two vehicles could pass through simultaneously .P.W. 8 was keeping his cart on its proper side. He further says that one of the wheels of his cart was on the tar portion of the road. He states that the petitioner was driving the vehicle without regard to the road rules of keeping to the left. Perhaps the accused did not expect a cart in that part of the night. Both the Courts below find rashness and culpable negligence by reason of the uncontrollable speed on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle with the object of reaching the destination early.

(3.) THE evidence of D.W. 1 stands unrebutted, since he was not cross -examined by the Public Prosecutor. There is no reason why the evidence of D.W. 1 should not be accepted. The appellate Court (District Magistrate) has not even adverted to the evidence of D.W. 1. The learned Magistrate has not given any finding as to the acceptance or rejection of the evidence of D.W. 1. With the prosecution case resting on the evidence of P.W. 3 principally on the one hand and corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses, and there being the evidence of D.W. 1 which goes unchallenged the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt.