ARJUN GHUSI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 304 -A, 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for one year, three months and three months respectively; the sentence to run concurrently. Prosecution case in short is that the Petitioner was driving truck No. O.R.N. 373 loaded with bricks on 4.8.1970. He had no licence to drive a heavy vehicle. Five persons sat on the top of the loaded bricks and another person was in the driver 's cabin. The truck capsized at about 10.30 a.m. at a place 3 Kms. from Sundargarh. It went off the road on its right after dashing against the mile stone and ultimately capsized at a distance of 29 to 35 feet from the road after travelling down the slope of 8 feet. The defence was one of complete denial. The Petitioner denied to have driven the truck and disowned any knowledge regarding the accident. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the Petitioner was driving the truck and his driving was rash and negligent as a result of which the accident occurred.

(2.) THE only point raised by Mr. Patel is that there are no satisfactory materials on record to hold that the Petitioner was driving the truck. In paragraph 6 of his judgment the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has fully discussed the evidence of p.ws. 4 and 5 on which both the Courts placed reliance in support of their conclusion that the Petitioner was driving the truck. Mr. Patel took me through the evidence of p.ws. 4 and 5. They appear to be witnesses of truth. They are simple village folk. From their evidence it is clear that they narrated the truth without any embellishment. Both of them were injured and there is no reason that they would falsely implicate the Petitioner that he was driving the truck. The accident took place at 10 -30 a.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged at 11.30 a.m. There was hardly one hour time. The likelihood of the Petitioner being falsely mentioned in the F.I.R. is almost negligible. The Petitioner is the Khalasi of the truck. There is no evidence that the driver Golam was in the truck. That further probabilises the theory that the Petitioner was driving the truck.

(3.) AS has already been stated, the evidence of p.ws. 4 5 and the intrinsic circumstances of the case lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Petitioner was deriding the truck rashly and negligently.