MONTU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was driving truck bearing No. 479-HRK and was proceeding from the side of Ballabgarh towards Capital Chowk Faridabad. When he reached the said chowk, he came across a few tractors. The tractors came from City Faridabad. The driver of the truck allegedly could not control the vehicle and took a turn towards the left and then to the right, as a result of which the truck capsized and 12 laboruers who were in the truck suffered different injuries. One of the persons was unfortunately run over by the truck. The police officials standing nearby noticed the accidents and they tried to rescue the injured persons and the deceased. A case FIR Exhibit PW8/C was got registered. The driver of the truck, namely, the petitioner, took to his heels and made good his escape but was being named correctly by the people present on the scene of accident. A rough site plan Exhibit PW8/E showing the place of occurrence was also prepared. The spot was also photographed by Tilak Raj Photographer PW-9. The documents of the vehicle were taken from the vehicle itself vide recovery memo. Exhibit PW-8/F.

(2.) POST -mortem examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr. M.R. Sharma. The autopsy report is Exhibit PW-5/A. The medico-legal reports of the injured persons are Exhibits PW-6/A and PW-6/B brought in evidence by Dr. B.K. Katyal PW-6.

(3.) IN the given circumstances, the petitioner has come before this Court in the present revision and has taken up various grounds. However, his main plank of the attack is that in fact the tractors appeared on the scene suddenly and he tried to save the accident by turning the truck towards the left and as a result the truck turned turtle and people received injuries. So, in fact, in this case there is otherwise no denial to the manner in which the accident took place, but it was being claimed that the petitioner was totally innocent and he drove the truck with utmost care and caution. One would outrightly agree to such an agreement in normal course of events. However, in the case in hand the situation is so grave that the fact that the truck capsized not only raises a strong inference but proves the fact that the truck in question was being driven at a very high speed and recklessly. The case of the prosecution has, right from the beginning, been such that the driver of the truck omitted to keep the truck at a normal speed. The place where the accident took place has a sufficiently wide road, though a busy locality. A lot of traffic is always there on such a road. It is presumed that it is in the knowledge of such a driver of a truck that at the place he was driving the truck he was supposed to negotiate pedestrians as well as people in other vehicles. So in such a situation, the normal conduct of a driver would have been that one keeps the vehicle slow rather than drive the truck at a very high speed. He ran away from the scene of occurrence, leaving the truck as it is. He did not try to rescue the injured persons. The deceased was dragged to a distance of 20 feet with the wheels of the truck in a bid to flee the truck or could not control the vehicle because of high speed.