TARAN PARKASH MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT should provide an object lesson for drivers of motor vehicles is well illustrated by the mishap which is the subject-matter of these four petitions of revision which would be disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) IN the morning of 20th of September, 1959, at about 7. 30 A. M. the Fiat Car PNT No. 2951 was proceeding in the direction of Karnal on the Grand Trunk Road, driven by Dhaunkal Singh P. W. Two persons were sitting in the front with the driver while three were sitting in the rear including Hardev Krishan sitting on the extreme right. The car was proceeding at a speed of 30 to 35 miles an hour on the Naugaza bridge, which is at a distance of 9 miles from Ambala Cantonment. The width of the bridge is 22 feet. Two trucks were coming from the opposite direction, one followed by the other. Taran Parkash was driving the truck in the front while Om Parkash was shortly behind driving the second truck. The truck driven by Taran Parkash was going at a speed of 15 to 20 miles an hour and had covered two-thirds of the length of the bridge when the accident occurred. Considering the width of the bridge neither of the two drivers exercised the caution which they might have. The truck of Taran Parkash struck the right rear window of the car which was then pushed on and within a few yards the second truck which was coming behind struck it again, this time hitting both the front and the back of the right side and inflicted injuries on Hardev Krishan which resulted in his death.

(3.) THE drivers of both the trucks were prosecuted under Sections 304a/ 279/338, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate convicted Taran Parkash under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. Half the fine, if realised, was to be paid to the legal heirs of Hardev Krishan. Likewise, Om Parkash, the driver of the second truck, was similarly sentenced and fined and again half the fine was to be paid to the legal heirs of Hardev Krishan. Two separate judgments were written by the learned Magistrate, but the learned Sessions Judge in disposing of the two appeals preferred by the two drivers confined the discussion of both the appeals in one judgment. The learned Judge upheld the conviction under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months and also the fine to a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -. Taking account of the fact that Dhaunkal Singh's car was badly damaged he directed that out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 700/- in each case, aggregating to Rs. 1,400/- should be paid to him. The heirs of Hardev Krishan being comparatively well off in the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge were left to pursue their remedy in the Civil Court.