MOHAMMED NASAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 6-1-1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Satna in Criminal Appeal No. 151/85 affirming the order of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod in Criminal Case No. 165/80 convicting the applicant under Section 304-A of the Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further R.I. for six months.

(2.) The applicant is a driver. On 29-7-1979 at about 12 in the noon while he was driving truck No. UPC 2449 coming from Ucheura side to Sidhi, a boy named Ram Singh was run over. The boy died on the spot. The report of the incient was lodged. The applicant was arrested and prosecuted under Section 304-A of the Penal Code. The applicant took the defence that he was driving his truck cautiously and in slow speed and the accident occurred on account of the boy having crossed the road suddenly it was not possible for him to avoid the same. He pleaded that he was innocent. Both the Courts below found the applicant guilty of driving the truck rashly and negligently resulting into the accident killing the boy and therefore convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the applicant took me through the evidence in support of his submission that the applicant was not negligent at all and that the accident had resulted only on account of the negligence of the deceased boy himself. Girdhari (P.W.3) and Tejbhan (P.W.4) are the eye - witnesses besides the other two witnesses Ramsujan (P.W.1) and Laxmi (P.W.2). Girdhari (P.W.3) has deposed in para 2 that the truck was coming from the Basti side of the village and was not in high speed. He was unable to say as to on whose negligence the accident has occurred. Tejbhan (P.W.4) has also deposed that boys were playing by the side of the road and sudden as the truck came closer the deceased boy ran across the road and in that process the truck dashed against the boy. He has also deposed that the truck driver had blown horn and that the accident had occurred due to the mistake of the deceased boy. Similar is the statement of Radhakishan (P.W.5). He has also deposed that boys were playing by the side of the road and as the truck came closer the boy ran across the road and truck dashed against the boy. From these facts it is clear that the truck driver cannot be said to be wholly responsible for the accident. The evidence shows that the truck was not in speed and that it appears that the deceased boy suddenly ran across the road resulting into the accident. But the applicant who was driving the truck should have been careful and was expected to anticipate that the boys are likely to cross the road and therefore he cannot be totally absolved of the liability of rash and negligent driving. However, having regarding to the facts stated above, in my opinion, a sentence of payment of fine will meet the ends of justice.