SHASHI BHUSHAN Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 21-3-1981 an accident took place between two trucks Nos. PBP 6515 and CHW 8020 near village Attawa of U.T. Chandigarh as a result of which three persons who were occupants of truck No. PBP 6515 namely Harnek Singh, Kesar Singh and Bhag Singh son of Jiwan Singh received injuries. Harnek Singh, out of them succumbed to his injuries by the time he was removed to P.G.I. Chandigarh. Truck No. PBP 6515 was being driven by Bhag Singh son of Jagir Singh and was coming from Anandpur Sahib; whereas truck No. CHW 8020 was being driven by Shashi Bhushan petitioner According to the prosecution, truck No. CHW 8020 was being driven rashly and negligently and the driver of the said truck did not even blow any horn. He, accordingly, was made responsible for the accident and prosecuted. On trial Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh held that truck No. CHW 8020 was being driven at fast speed and the driver of the said truck was also negligent. Consequently, Shashi Bhushan was convicted under sections 304/A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. For the first offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years as well as to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which fine, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. For the second offence, petitioner Shashi Bhushan was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the said convictions and sentences Shashi Bhushan preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and the same, vide his judgment dated 4-3-1985, was dismissed maintaining convictions under sections 304/A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Toe substantive sentence awarded to the appellant on the first count, however, was reduced from two years to one and half years. The rest of the sentences were maintained. The direction with regard to the concurrent running of the sentences was repeated by the Sessions Judge as well. Present revision petition has been directed against the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The facts that accident took place between two trucks-one of which being driven by Bhag Singh son of Jagir Singh and the other by revision petitioner Shashi Bhushan, are admitted as per statement of the petitioner under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further admitted by the accused in his said statement that some person were sitting with Bhag Singh on the front seat of truck No. PBP 6515. It is also accepted that one of them died as a result of the injuries and the other two got injured. Thus presence of P.W. Kesar Singh and Bhag Singh son of Divan Singh at the time of the alleged occurrence has been accepted. Undisputedly they were also in a position to have the full grasp of the situation as they were admittedly sitting by the side of the driver of truck No PHP 6515. Besides that, injuries received on their persons about which Dr. Raj Bahadur (P.W. 8) has deposed confirm their presence at the time of the occurrence. When they have deposed that truck No. CHW 8020 was being driven at fast speed and the driver of the truck did not blow any horn, the same deserves high probative value. Their deposition, therefore, has rightly been accepted by the Courts below. Any special interest of the witnesses in deceased Harnek Singh or any inimical deposition towards petitioner Shashi Bhushan has not been suggested to any of these witnesses. No suggestion sufficient to infer contributory negligence in any manner has either been put to any of the said witnesses the direct evidence provided by them cannot possibly be rebutted by subsequent positions of the two vehicles depicted by the photographs, particularly when the collision took place sidewise. Unimaginable position can also occur at times as a result of laws of motion and reactionary forces. It is common case of the parties that both the vehicles were in motion when the impact took place and one of which being driven at high speed was bound to have been pushed to a larger distance on the basis of the principle that to every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. The evidence produced by the prosecution, thus has not been replied so as to draw any different conclusion.