SURESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioner's conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. and his sentences awarded thereunder has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge Dholpur under his Judgment dated October 9, 1987. Learned AddI. Chief Judicial Magistrate Dholpur under his judgment dated April 24, 1986, convicted the accused petitioner under the aforesaid four counts. Under Section 279 and Sec. 337 each I.P.C. he was sentenced to 3 months 5.1. and fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months simple imprisonment. Under Sec. 338 I.P.C. he was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. Under Sec. 304 A I.P.C. the accused petitioner was sentenced to one years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, in assailing the judgments of the Courts below, has contended that there was sufficient material on record that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and that the accident took place on account of failure of brakes and the petitioner had taken all the possible precautions to avoid accident but because there was a tanker coming from opposite direction and also a U.P. Roadways Bus coming from Agra side, the petitioner took his jeep on one side and in this process persons started running and one person died. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the learned courts below that the accused petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the jeep is perverse.

(3.) It appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that foot brakes of jeep were failed, but according to him hand-brakes were in order. In my opinion the approach of the learned court below to that effect does not appear to be correct. A look at Ex. P/5, the mechanical inspection report, will show that the Machanic stated that foot brake was not working, hand-brake was in order. Stearing system was in order. He also stated that on sudden application of brakes the pipe had broken and brakes went out of order. Even if the driver wanted to stop the vehicle, it could not be stopped. It has come in the statement of P.W. 1 Rajendra Kumar that the speed of the jeep was 30 to 40 km. per hour and when the jeep reached the market where there was Hat, he asked the driver to slow the jeep and then the driver told him that the brakes of jeep has failed. The driver is also said to have attempted to change the gear of the jeep, but a tanker from the opposite direction came and from Agra side a V.P. Roadways bus also came. The drivers of the said U.P. Roadways bus and that of the tanker were talking each other. The driver of jeep turned the jeep and the jeep went in kachcha and some persons started running. It will therefore be clear that the brakes of the jeep suddenly failed and the driver could not avoid accident. In my opinion the petitioner in this fact-situation cannot be said to be rash and negligent. Babu Singh P.W. 3, who was one of the injured persons, said that the jeep was slow. The accident took place because the brakes of the jeep had failed suddenly and in my opinion it cannot be said that the petitioner was driving the jeep rashly or negligently: The mechanic, who examined the jeep categorically stated in his report that even if the driver wanted to stop the jeep it could not be stopped.