VIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIR Singh petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, vide his order dated November 27, 1980. A sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 700 was imposed on him. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 29-12-1975 Roshan Lal and his father Rulla Ram were going towards their village Sagga from Kaithal on a cycle. Roshan Lal was paddling the cycle and his father Ralla Ram was sitting on its carrier. At about 1 p.m., they reached the bus-stop of village Narar. At that time, Bus No. HRK 4577, driven by Vir Singh accused, came from the side of Kaithal. It is said that as a result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused, the bus struck against the cycle of Roshan Lal. Roshan Lal and Rulla Ram fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Rulla Ram succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Roshan Lal was admitted to Civil Hospital Kaithal, for treatment. Dr. P.L. Bhasin examined him and found 4 injuries on his persons as detailed in the medico legal report Exhibit P.B. On receipt of intimation from the doctor, Assistant Sub Inspector Bodh Raj went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured, which formed the basis of the normal first information report. Roshan Lal expired in the hospital on 29-12-1975 at about 11 p.m. Inquest on the dead bodies were held. Dr. Bhasin conducted autopsy on the deadbody of Ralla Ram on 30-12-1975 and according to him, Rulla Ram died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fracture of the rights ribs, rapture of the right lung and fracture of the right fore-arm bones, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Autopsy on the deadbody of Roshan Lal was also conducted by Dr. Bishan and he opined that death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fracture of the right leg and sub-dural haematoma, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Assistant Sub-Inspector Bodh Raj went the spot, prepared its visual plan, Exhibit PW 6/B and also took into possession cycle, exhibit P1 from the place of occurrence. The accused was arrested. After necessary investigation, he was sent up for trial. He was convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

(3.) THE argument laboured with little persistence on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no evidence on the file from which it can be stated that the petitioner drove the bus negligently and rashly and rather it stands established that Roshan Lal who was driving the cycle in the centre of the road, took the turn abruptly towards the road going to the right side and, therefore, he was negligent. There appears to be substance in his contention. The first thing which would catch the eye herein is that more or less it is the prosecution's own case that at the alleged time of accident the cyclists were going in the middle of the road. Kabul Singh, who is solitary eye-witness to the accident, has admitted in his cross-examination that they suddenly turned towards Narar Road and the accident took place exactly on that turning. This witness could not tell the speed of the bus at the alleged time of accident. Once that is so, it is evident that little rashness or negligence can be attributed to the petitioner. The evidence on the record leaves hardly any manner of doubt that the sudden and unwarranted turning without giving any signal of unsteady cycle by Roshan Lal, who was carrying Rulla Ram on the carrier of the cycle, at a point must be classed as a rush and negligent act on his part. Kabul Singh has also stated that after the accident, the bus stopped at a distance of about 5/10 yards. On a high way of this nature, driving between 20 to 30 miles in the present days cannot necessarily be termed as rash driving. At that speed with a heavy vehicle it would be next to impossible to stop the vehicle dead and evade the cyclist, who had suddenly swerved in front of the vehicle. In such a situation evasive action taken by the petitioner, far from being termed rash and negligent, was an inevitable act of reasonable driving. At the very highest, in a situation when you have to make a decision on the spur of moment, it cannot be termed any error than an error of judgment. It is more than well settled that an error of judgment in a dramatic situation of this kind cannot bring one within the ambit of criminal rashness or negligence. As was noticed at the outset, it is the admitted position that the point of impact resulting in the death of the deceased was on the extreme right of the road. The cycle, the body of the deceased and the injured admittedly thereafter lay on the right side. The mere fact that the petitioner was compelled to swerve to the right to evade the cyclist does not in any way necessarily evidence his negligence as has been opined by the Courts below. It is common knowledge that in certain situations, good driving may require swerving to avoid collusion rather than to attempt to stop dead and more so with a heavy vehicle like bus which even with the best of brakes, cannot come to a hit.