GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner challenges the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra Division, in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1985, decided on 7-1-1987, thereby confirming the decision of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, in Criminal Case No.114.1I/82, decided on 29-12-1984. By this decision, the petitioner has been convicted u/ S.304-A of the Penal Code and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 2000.00 and in default of the payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine, on realisation, has been ordered to be paid to the parents of the deceased.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that on Sept.20. 1982, the petitioner was driving truck No. HPS-4955 from Nagrota to Palampur, a State Highway. He crushed to death Rakesh Kumar (6) near Darang at about 12-15 p.m. while the child was standing on the left side of the road. It is alleged that the petitioner was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and the accident was the outcome of the same. The parents of the child and some other persons raised noise and the petitioner stopped the vehicle at a distance of 50 feet from the place of accident. The matter was reported to the police. Thereafter the matter was investigated and ultimately a case u/ S. 279 and 304-A of the Penal Code was initiated against the petitioner. The trial ended in the aforesaid conviction of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the appellate court.

(3.) The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Further, the petitioner denied that the accident had taken place on account of his rash and negligent driving. In fact, the child got frightened on the blowing of the horn with the result that it attempted to cross the road and thus came under the rear tyres of the truck which resulted in the mishap. Both the courts came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. I proceed to look into the evidence adduced by the prosecution as the question of one's being rash or negligent in the driving of a vehicle is dependent on evidence - that being purely a question of fact.