AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was convicted by Munsif Magistrate (Lower Criminal Court) First Class. Rampur and sentenced to one year's R. I., under section 304-A, IPC, six months' R.I. under section 338, IPC and three months' R.I. under section 279, IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. As against this judgment and order, an appeal was preferred. THE learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, had found |that along with section 304-A, IPC, the charge under section 338, IPG should not have been framed. Hence, (sic) has set aside the punishment under section 338, IPC. THE order of the Magistrate under sections 304-A and 279, IPC, was, however, maintained. Aggrieved by this last order, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) IT was alleged by the prosecution that at 1.30 P.M. on 20-7-1983 the applicant was driving his bus no. DLP 1066 Rampur Bareilly Road. He was coming from the side of Rampur with a very high speed and moving in a very careless manner. He had hit the cyclist as a result of which the cyclist received fatal injuries. The applicant was arrested on the spot. The cyclist had been injured seriously. He was taken to the Local District Hospital where he died same day. A case had been registered at the police- station concerned against the applicant. The post-mortem was carried on the body of the cyclist.

(3.) THE contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant cannot be drawn on the above solitary statement. THE courts below have held that the applicant was negligent and rash in driving his vehicle. He has been held responsible for the death of the cyclist. I do not find any justification to interfere with these concurrent findings on the basis of solitary sentence occurring In the cross-examination of Chandrabhan PW 5 that the bus had stopped at a distance of five steps after hitting the cyclist. This statement about distance of five steps may be only an estimation of the witness. Nothing hinges in favour of the applicant on the above statement.