RAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Revision Petition has been filed as against the Judgment confirming the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 (34 counts), 338 (9 counts) and 304-A (5 counts) of IPC.

(2.) ACCORDING to the revision petitioner, who is a driver of a tempo van, there was no rash and negligent driving by him except for the fact that he has taken the passengers in a goods carriage. However, according to him, the vehicle was not in a good condition and there was a mechanical defect, which has been pointed but, the Brake Inspector has given a written certificate that there was no defect in the vehicle. Hence, the Courts below have wrongly come to the conclusion regarding the mode of accident. Hence, the conviction is sought to be set aside by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

(3.) AS stated supra, when the revision petitoner/accused is not able to even question what was the defect in the vehicle, it is rather unfortunate, at this point of time, by the revision petitioner to say that the accident took place only because of the mechanical defect. In this connection, it is also pertinent to point out here that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who would categorically state that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, inspite of the fact that they have told him not to drive the vehicle like that. Further, P.W.1 has stated that the revision petitioner swerved the vehicle right hand side, on the western side of the road and dashed against the rock. In fact, he would also clearly state that the impact of dashing the vehicle with the rock, the vehicle split into two, the result of which, the front portion and the back portion were separated. Unless the driver has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the said impact could not have been caused. Infact, the dividing of vehicle into two half had taken place. The act speaks for itself, nothing more to be added.