BACHNA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated August 29, 1986 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of committing offences under Sections 302 -A, 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs.500/ - for an offence under Section 304 -A IPC, RI for three months for an offence under Section 279 IPC, RI for our months for an offence under Section 337 IPC and RI for nine months under Section 338 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further RI for two months, though all the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently, as well as against the judgment dated November 9, 1987, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid judgment dated August 29, 1986 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner was a driver of the Haryana Roadways and was driving the bus bearing registration No.HYA -2270 on the fateful day which was proceeding from Kalka to Hodel. There were about 50 passengers in the bus. A truck bearing registration No.DLL -7215 was parked on the left side of the road near the outskirts of villager Masana on the National Highway (G.T.Road), between Pipli and Shahbad with its back towards the coming bus and another truck No.HRL -3425 driven by Krishan Lal (PW -5) came from the opposite direction. When the truck bearing registration No.HRL -3425 was about to cross the stationary truck, which was parked already on the left side of the road, the bus driven by the petitioner dashed against truck No.HRL -3425, thereby causing a major accident in which six innocent passengers lost their lives, apart from various others, who received multiple injuries. This led to the registration of the case and consequential prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 279/337/338/304 -A IPC, for which the petitioner having been held guilty, was sentenced as referred to above.

(3.) SHRI Navneet Chhokar, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argues that the photographs on record, Ex.P -1 to P -8, especially those, to which reference was made at the time of admission of this revision petition, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, can be held responsible for causing the accident by his rash and/or negligent driving. According to Shri Chhokar, the accident is exclusively attributable to the drivers of both the trucks, namely, the first, who wrongly parked the truck on the firms of the National High way and the second who, as depicted in the photographs, was not driving the truck in the right direction. According to him the placement of the bus in the photographs clearly suggests that the petitioner was driving on the extreme left side and was going straight. According to learned counsel if the amount of negligence is proportionately distributed amongst the three drivers, the element of rash or negligent driving, to be attributed to the petitioner, comes out totally negligible. Shri Chhokar then contended that the prosecution having not examined the investigating officer as a witness, has caused great prejudice to the petitioner. He also assails the judgment passed by the learned Courts below on the ground that the petitioner has been held to be a rash and negligent driver merely because the long route bus driven by him on a National Highway has been stated to be at a high speed by a few witnesses. In support of his aforementioned contention, reliance has been placed by him on two judgments of this Court in Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana,, 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 820 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana,, 2001(3) RCR (Crl.) 17.