STATE Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was convicted by the A DM Udhampur for an offence under S. 304 -A of fie RFC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ - and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. A notice has been issued suomoto by this court to the respondent to show cause Why in the event of his conviction being upheld the Sentence should not be enhanced.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the respondent is that on 8 -10 -65 he was driving a bus No. JKA 5331 in a rash and negligent manner and collided with an army vehicle as a result of which several persons received injuries and two of them succumbed to the injuries. If the respondent is against guilty of the offence with which he is charged there can be no doubt that the sentence awarded him is wholly inadequate in view of the fact that two persons died and several persons received injuries as a result of the rash and negligent act of respondent. But Mr. C M. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the I respondent is entitled to an acquittal on the basis of the prosecution evidence itself It is certainly with in the rights of the learned counsel to raise such a contention in view of the fact that a notice for enhancement of the sentence has been issued to the respondent. The admitted facts are that the accident occurred due to a sudden dust storm which affected the visibility of the road on which the respondent was driving his bus and further that on account of such invisibility the driver of the army le which was coming from the opposite side and with which the bus driven by the respondent collided was also not able to stop his vehicle in time, prosecution witnesses themselves have given conflicting versions with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred, Jagat Ram has stated that both the vehicles namely the bus driven by the respondent and the army vehicle were being driven at a very high speed. He could not however sail what the speed of the vehicles was. Gian Chand stated that the respondent was driving his bus all ordinary speed, that he was neither fast nor slow and that neither the respondent nor the driver the army vehicle blew the horn. He however stated| that the respondent was driving his vehicle on correct side of the road and that the accident did not occur due to any negligence on the part of the respondent. Jeetu Ram stated that the respondent was not driving the bus at a high speed. Behari stated that when the dust storm rose the respondent slowed down the speed of the bus and that he was also sounding the horn. He denied that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the respondent.

(3.) IN view of the contradictory versions given by the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said that the accident occurred either because the respondent was driving the vehicle on the wrong side of the road or at a high speed or that he was not sounding the horn. The accident occurred because the sudden occurrence of the dust storm resulted in poor visibility. It is obvious that on account of the poor visibility the respondent as well as the driver of the army vehicle did not see each other and could not stop their respective vehicles in time. It is argued by the learned Dy. Advocate General that the negligence of the respondent lay in not stopping his vehicle when the dust storm made it unsafe for him to proceed further. It is now, however, proved that the dust storm lasted for any length of time before the accident occurred. The dust storm and the accident seem to have occurred at about the same time. It cannot therefore be said that the respondent acted rashly or negligently in not stopping the bus on account of the dust storm.