RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lorry MDU 7078, driven by the petitioner went off the main Tiruchi-Dindigul road at 6-15 a.m. on 7-7-1969 and capsized on the house of one Arayee situate at a point 7-6 metres south of the mud portion of the road. Arayee got into the debris and died at the spot; so also Arumugham, the cleaner who was inside the lorry. One pambayee who was in the house sustained grievous hurt. Four person Ambikeswaran, Devarajan, Velusami and Ganapathi also sustained some injuries, P. Ws. 1 and 2 who were proceeding abroad actually witnessed the capsizing of the lorry at the spot. Ex.P-1 report was given at the police station by P.W. 1. The Petitioner was tried by the District Magistrate, Tiruchira-palli under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, (2) counts). 338 of the Indian Penal Code and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (three counts). He was convicted under all the Sections and sentenced under S. 304 A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under each court. No separate sentences were imposed far the other offences. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, affirmed only the conviction and sentence imposed on the Petitioner under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code The Petitioner contends that he has been wrongly convicted.

(2.) The learned Judge observes in paragraph 5 of his judgment that there no evidence to show that the Petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. However, he has chosen to affirm the conviction under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code observing that the facts disclosed negligence on the part of the Petitioner. From the fact that the vehicle had left the main road and gone into the mud portion of file road and dashed against the house of Arayee the learned Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner should have driven the vehicle in a negligent manner. Merely because the vehicle had gone off the road we cannot say that it was due to the negligent driving on the part of the person who was on the wheels. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were going ahead of the lorry. The lorry was proceeding behind them. There-fore, they could not have actually seen the circumstances under which the lorry was forced to take a turn to the mud portion deviating from the main road. The Petitioner's case is that the bulls of the cart which was coming in the opposite direction suddenly shied and that this made him swerve to the left leaving the main road. Unless some such thing had happened, there could have been no reason for the Petitioner to leave off the main read and go towards the house of Arayee. P.W.4 says that he could not say as to whether any cart was coming in that direction as stated by the Petitioner.

(3.) Be that as it may, there is no evidence on the side of the Respondent to show that the Petitioner was in any way negligent in driving the vehicle. There can be no general presumption that the fact that a car leaves the road is evidence of rash and negligent driving. There can be no burden on an accused to prove that he was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner merely because the prosecution proves the fact that the car left the road. As pointed out in Natarajan in re, (2), there may be innumerable circumstances of defect not even within the knowledge of the driver of the vehicle. The road may be wet, slippery, or in some manner unsafe. Merely because the lorry left the road, we cannot presume any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Petitioner are set aside. He is acquitted of the offences under which he stands convicted. The revision is allowed.