RAJPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a revision against judgment dated 16-04-2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 08/09-12-1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, convicting and sentencing the accused for rashly and negligently driving bus HR-46-3591 and causing death of Krishan Kumar and thereby committing an offence u/s 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C., filed by the petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of contributory negligence as it is admitted story of the prosecution that Rori was loaded in truck No. HRJ 6635 from village Baliyana and was to be delivered at the premises of Swadesh Industries, Jind Road, Rohtak. Krishan was driver and Balwan Singh, conductor on it. Around 3 p.m., they reached Rohtak and Krishan parked the truck in front of the aforesaid factory. Balwan Singh, conductor and another person by the name of Dharam Singh started unloading Rori from it. Krishan was standing in front of the truck when the bus hit Krishan. Thus, Krishan was standing in the centre of the road and this is also evident from the site plan. Incorrect findings have been recorded by the Courts below. It was, further, argued that eye witnesses had their back to the bus and, hence, they could not have seen the occurrence. They never stated that the bus was driven at the fast speed. It was not sufficient to say that he was driving rashly and negligently.

(3.) HENCE , the conviction of the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide judgment dated 09-12-1999 and 16-04-2002 is confirmed. However, it would be appropriate to hear the petitioner on the question of sentence. The petitioner has been granted the maximum sentence, provided under the said offence. He has undergone approximately three months of the actual sentence. The incident is of the year 1995. At that time, he was aged about 32-33 years. He is not a previous convict. He is facing trial in this case ever since. The sword is hanging on his head. He is a government employee. He has already suffered a lot. The Court feels that the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be extended the benefit of probation instead of sending him back to jail for undergoing the remaining sentence.