GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURNAM Singh was tried by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa on the allegations that on 8. 7. 1984, in the area of village Rangari Khera, while driving jeep No. RRK 897, rashly and negligently, he had caused the death of Khush Dayal cyclist. The trial court found him guilty for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R. I. for six months on the first count and to R. I. for 1 1/2 years on the second, with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further R. I. for three months. Dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence, Gurnam Singh went in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge before whom he did not challenge his order of conviction, rather made a statement there, admitting himself to be responsible for the road accident. He prayed before that court to be given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. This prayer did not find favour with the appellate court which, maintaining his conviction, reduced the sentence to R. I. for three months under Section 279 and R. I. for six months under Section 304-A of the aforesaid Code. The sentence of fine was maintained. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Still feeling aggrieved with the appellate order of conviction and sentence, he has come up in revision before this Court. The revision was admitted on the point of sentence only.

(2.) I have perused the record of the case and heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned Counsel has urged that the petitioner be given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. I find that Prem Lal, PW 2, mechanic who tested the jeep in question, had stated during trial that the vehicle had weak brakes and its left brake was leaking. It was obviously a patent fact and the petitioner should have taken notice thereof. Driving the jeep with weak brakes and its left side brake leaking may be described as an act of unleashing a monster on a frequented road. This negligence of the petitioner cannot be considered lightly. Thus, I do not deem it a proper case for granting him the benefit of the Act.