RAM RATTAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the judgment in Case No. 24 -S/10 of 1986 decided on 4 -9 -1986 by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Camp Nalagarh, confirming the judgment of Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Arki camp at Nalagarh, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under section 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner assails this decision by way of this revision petition,

(2.) The allegations against the petitioner, in brief, are that on 20 -11 -1984, while driving bus No. HPA -811 from Nalagarh to Kalka, he crushed Master Suresh Kumar to death at about 5 p. m. due to his rash and negligent driving. The place of accident was near Pirthan. The trial commenced and ended in the aforesaid conviction of the appellant which was, on appeal, maintained by the appellate court.

(3.) Shri A. K. Goel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the courts below have failed to take into account the evidence of Shrimati Vidya Devi (PW 2), mother of the deceased, as well as of Kumari Usha (PW 3), sister of the deceased, to the effect that the petitioner had made all out efforts to avert the accident and that the deceased had struck in the hind portion of the bus. Further, it is submitted that the bus was not being driven either rashly or negligently as the same overloaded, passengers were even sitting on the roof of the bus. Besides, it was taking a curve near the place of accident. The appreciation of evidence by the courts below qua PWs 1, 2, 3 and 7 has been challenged by the learned Counsel by pointing out certain contradictions in their statements. Much stress has been laid on those parts of the statements which mention about the speed of the vehicle and the part of the body of the bus which struck the deceased. The attempt of the learned Counsel is to demonstrate and convince the court that, because the driver made an effort to save the child and that it struck only in the hind portion of the bus ; so the driver was neither rash nor negligent.