BHARAT PANDHARINATH MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PPLICANT-BHARAT Pandhari-nath More was tried for the offence under s. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, court No. 7 in Regular Criminal Case No. 1371 of 1996 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, by his order dt. 12-10-1998, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant challenged this order of conviction and sentence passed against him in criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1998 before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal, by his order dt. 18-10-1999, confirmed conviction of the appellant for the offence under S. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and modified the sentence by reducing substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for two months and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. This order of sentence is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the applicant was driving a Goods Truck bearing No. MH-30 B-2460 on 29-11-1996 and that, this truck met with an accident on that day at about 21. 30 hours, when the truck was passing near the bifurcation of Bandu Gota phata at about 7. 00 p. m. victim Manohar varma, who was seated on rear side of the truck amongst other persons, was thrown from the truck on receiving jerk when the applicant immediately turned the truck to a side to avoid clash with other vehicle coming from opposite side. It is admitted that, as a result of being thrown out from the truck victim Manohar died on the spot. That is how, the applicant was tried for the offence u/s. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the victim died on account of rash and negligent driving by the applicant.

(3.) MR. Mardikar, the learned counsel, though initially questioned correctness and legality of conviction of the appellant, in the alternative submitted that having regard to the circumstances attending the case, also the fact that the applicant is about 25 years of age and that death of the victim was not direct result of rash and negligent act of driving of the applicant, this Court should take lenient view in the matter and that the applicant should be given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act by releasing him on probation.