PENU ALIAS PANNU SETHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stands convicted under sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code, and for the latter mentioned offence he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five months, and no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under section 279, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The petitioner was the driver of the tractor bearing registration No. M.R.P. 4581 belonging to Dandakaranya Project. The deceased was the Sectional Officer in that Project, and the petitioner was working under him at the relevant time. On the date of occurrence the Sectional Officer (the deceased) was returning from M.V.N. 60 to M.V. No. 90 in the evening in the aforesaid tractor driven by the petitioner. On the way, at about 9-30 p.m. one of the wheels of the tractor went over a gravel heap on the road as a result of which the Sectional Officer, who was sitting on the tractor was thrown out and the rear wheel of the tractor ran over his head. The deceased sustained injuries on his head and died soon thereafter. On the allegation of rash and negligent driving the petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code and he has been convicted of the same. In defence the petitioner asserted that at the relevant time he was driving the vehicle under the orders of the deceased who was his immediate boss, and the accident took place for no fault of his though he was driving the tractor slowly and in a very careful manner.

(3.) From the impugned judgment it appears that the petitioner has been convicted of the aforesaid offence mostly on the ground that he was driving the vehicle at night without headlights, its foot brakes were not wholly efficient; there was no hand brake in it, there was excessive play in its streeing system and the deceased was sitting on it in a precarious position in the middle between the driver and the bonnet though there was no seat provided at that place. The Court below finds that driving the said tractor in that condition after nightfall was itself a negligent act and though the petitioner drove that vehicle under the direction of the deceased he could not be absolved of the guilt, as he would be presumed to know the consequences of his driving the vehicle at night in the aforesaid circumstances.