BHAGWAT RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner, Bhagwat Rai. He has been convicted under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the former court, the Petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under the latter to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -(Rupees five hundred only) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a month and a half.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on the 6th June, 1966, Ramchandra Singh, (P.W. 4) was going on a cycle on Chapra -Sonepore Road in the morning at 9 A. M. A truck bearing Registered No. BRD 324 was coming from the opposite direction and although Ramchandra Singh (P. W. 4) moved to the extreme left side of the road, yet the truck came and dashed against him, which resulted in minor injuries to him and damage to his cycle.

(3.) MR . Thakur Prasad, appearing for the Petitioner, submitted firstly that an offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code was compoundable under law and if the parties wanted to compromise the trial court should have granted permission to compound it. So far as the conviction and sentence under Section 279 of the Code was concerned, he further submitted that the charge of rash and negligent driving was not established. In this connection, he referred me to the evidence on the record to show that the speed at which the truck was being driven at the relevant time was very slow, say, about: 10 -12 miles per hour and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said to be a rash and negligent driving. He further referred me to that part of the evidence where Ramchandra Singh, Complainant, (P. W. 4) himself who stated that the truck was blowing horn and that this act of the driver shows that he was not driving the truck: negligently. According to Mr. Prasad, as the ingredients of Section 279, Indian Penal Code, were not established, the conviction under the aforesaid section was bad in law. I don't agree with this submission of Mr. Prasad assailing the conviction. The road on which the truck was plying was only 11 ft. wide and, therefore, a very narrow road. It requires a greater caution in driving a vehicle of the size of a motor lorry on such a narrow strip of road. Even if the truck was going at a speed of 10 to 12 miles per hour, it cannot be said as a rule that it was not a rash driving. It depends upon the situation or the location where the vehicle was being driven.