JUDHISTIR PALATA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, a taxi driver, has been convicted under Section 304 -A, Indian Penal Code read with Section 279 thereof by a learned Magistrate First Class at Kodala, and was sentenced to six months' R.I. under the first count and to no sentence under the second count. His conviction as also the sentence have been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal,

(2.) THE prosecution case was that at about 7 A.M. on 25 -7 -1967 one Rama Sahu, brother of p.w. 1, was run over by the taxi which the Petitioner was driving. It was alleged that the taxi, registered as O.R.G. 1725, was being driven both negligently and rashly and the Petitioner could not control the vehicle. The victim Rama Sahu died in the Berhampur hospital on 27 -7 -1967. First Information Report was given by p.w. 1 and on investigation the Petitioner was charge -sheeted. The defence of the Petitioner was that Rama Sahu was going in the middle of the road. The Petitioner blew the horn as the car came nearer. The deceased had swerved to the left. While the Petitioner was manipulating to take over on the right, the deceased suddenly moved towards the right and dashed on the left side of the vehicle. That led to the accident. 14 witnesses were examined at the trial. P.Ws. 2 to 4 came as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Some of them were sitting on the culvert close to the place of accident while others were in the neighbouring field doing cultivation operation. P.W. 5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who came to the spot a few days after the occurrence. The learned Magistrate, after discussion of the entire evidence, came to hold that the Petitioner was both rash and negligent while driving the vehicle and that was the direct promenade cause of death. He accordingly convicted the Petitioner in the manner already indicated and gave him the sentence of six months' R.I.

(3.) AN appeal was carried to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Appellate Judge, without examining the evidence on record, in a critic judgment upheld the conviction. The Appellate Court, however, reversed the finding of the learned Magistrate regarding rash driving of the vehicle.