RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dated 8-7-1993 whereby, the conviction of the present petitioner under Section 338/337 of the Indian Penal Code was maintained. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Magistrate under Section 338 IPC was reduced to rigours rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run on currently. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC was set aside. Aggrieved against the order of conviction, and sentence, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. This revision petition was admitted on the question of sentence awarded by the Courts below to the petitioner.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petitioner are that on 26-7-1987 the petitioner was driving his tempo on Narnaul Kunjpura road. When the said tempo carrying passing reached near the Rest House near a culvert, the front wheel of the tempo was detached, and the passengers travelling in the tempo fell on the road. Meanwhile bus driven rashly and negligently by Mahabir co-accused of the petitioner came and over-run passengers who had fallen down on the road from the tempo. As a result of the said accident Jagmal Singh and Kalu Ram died at the spot, whereas, Mohar Singh, Ram Chander, Sultan, Ganesh, Pat Ram, Rajesh, Bhgwana Kailash and Saroj received simple injuries. The first information report in this case was recorded on the basis of the statement of Kailash one of the passengers travelling in the tempo. After completion of the investigation, the present petitioner and his co-accused Mahabir were challaned. The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced by the Court below as stated earlier.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner, it was mainly contended that as far as the present petitioner is concerned, he was merely driving the tempo and the passenger fell down because one of the wheels of the tempo was detached and thereafter bus driven by Mahabir co accused ran over those passengers.