ARJUN TEWARI Vs. STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Arjun Tewari was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 304 -A of the I. P. C. and also under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act by a Presidency Magistrate, now known as Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, but sentenced only for the conviction under Section 304 -A. I. P. C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 23.11.1968 one Radharani Mondal, a maid servant was escorting a boy aged about 5 years named Tapas from his School to his house at about 11. a.m. She was holding the hand of the child. While she was crossing the road at the junction of Sovabazar Street and Maharsni Debendra Street, Calcutta, a lorry dashed against them causing the instantaneous death of the child and some hurt to Radharani. The registration number of the lorry was WBK -6573. The driver immediately fled away leaving the lorry on the spot. Several people collected. Police came, examined witnesses and submitted charge -sheet against the accused who was alleged to have driven the lorry. The accused pleaded not guilty.

(3.) IN this case several witnesses were examined and several documents were proved. According to the evidence the driver of the lorry left the place abandoning the lorry after it had dashed against the victims and nobody could see the accused actually driving the lorry at the time of the incident. The prosecution has however examined Awadh Narayan Sukla, P.W. 15 who maintained the garage register of the offending lorry No. WBK -6573. He produced the garage register and proved. It is Ext. 8. His evidence is that on the date of incident, the accused took away the lorry from the garage at 7 a. m. after signing the garage register Ext. 8 in his presence. The witness has proved the signature of the accused in the register and it is Ext. 8/1. The evidence is that P. W 15 saw the accused taking away the lorry from the garage and the accused was sitting in the driver's seat. There is no challenge or cross -examination suggesting that the accused did not take away the lorry from the garage. The only suggestion was that in the absence of the driver of a car, another person could move a car by starting it. It is, of course, no wonder that a car may be driven by another person who knows how to drive. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the facts and circumstances, was satisfied that it was the accused who was driving the car and dashed against the victims.