HAMEED SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was charge -sheeted for: the offence under Sections 304A and 279, Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 11 -7 -1971 at bout 9.45 a.m. on Bareiily -Shahjahanpur load near a could storage the applicant as driving truck No. U.S.Q. 9276 in a tanner so rash and negligent as to end -iger human life and likely to cause hurt any person and thereby committed an fence punishable under Section 279, of the Indian Penal Code. It was further alleged against him that on that date and place he caused the death of Mukhtar Ali, a driver of bus No. U.S. Si 2538 by driving the truck rashly and negligently and, as such, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE applicant pleaded not guilty. He although admitted the accident but alleged that his tnuck was standing and that he was changing, its stepney but as the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the Government Roadways as a result of which it collided against the standing truck and resulted in breaking the wheels and the spring of the truck. On this plea of defence he denied that he was guilty of having driven the truck rashly and negligently. To prove its case the prosecution produced Yashbir Singh (P.W. 2), Nazim Ali (P. W. 3), and Jagdish Chandra (P.W. 4) Dr. K.K. Singh (P.W. 1), who conducted the post -mortem examination on the dead body of Mukhtar Ali was also examined as P.W. 1.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant (sic) that as the learned Sessions Judge (sic) that there was no reliable evidence with regard to the speed at which the truck was being driven by the applicant at the time of the accident, the conclusion arrived at that the applicant was negligent or was guilty of driving the truck rashly was illegal. It is true that in most of the case a person is said to be guilty of negligent and rash driving if he is found to have been driving the vehicle at a high or fast speed but speed need not necessarily be confused with the question of rash and negligent driving. The speed is not conclusive criteria for deter mining the rash and negligent driving. In the instant case the evidence of P.W. (sic) Yashbir and P.W. 4 Jagdish Chandra shows that bus was moving slowly on the left side of the road and that the truck arrived from the opposite direction and (sic)rashed against the bus and as a result of the impact the driver of the bus lost his life. On the evidence of these two witnesses it was found that the truck was on the wrong side of the road and the application was thus responsible for the accident. It may be noted that accident took place at about 9.45 a.m. on 11th July 1971 when there was sufficient light and there was no reason as to why could the truck (sic) driven on its left when the left side was vacant. This in my opinion fulfils the requirement of section 304 -A, which was required to be established by the prosecution.