JIWAN RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE accused-applicant stands convicted under Sections 304 (A) and 338 of the I. P. C. and sentenced in the aggregate to undergo six months' R. I. The main contention of the counsel for the accused-applicant before the Court is that the accused-applicant at the time in question was not driving the lorry rashly or negligently. The evidence on the record of the trial Court goes to show that at the time in question the lorry was being driven at a speed of 30-35 miles an hour. The site plan on the record of the trial Court goes to show that at the place where the accident took place the road turns sharply towards the right. The words 'rashly' or 'negligently' mean doing an act without due diligence and caution. It is accordingly to be seen whether at the time of the accident in question the accused-applicant was driving the lorry with due diligence and caution or not.

(3.) A lorry is more difficult to control than a car. The site-plan shows that at the place of the accident in question the road turns sharply towards the right. The very fact that the lorry left the pucca road and went on the kuchha 'patri' shows that there was no due diligence and Jiwan Ram vs. State (29. 10. 1951 - RAJHC) Page 2 of 3 (29. 10. 1951 - RAJHC) Page 2 of 3 caution in driving the lorry at the time. This rashness or negligence on the part of the accused-applicant is further enhanced by the fact that the lorry not only remained on the kucha 'patri' but went down the 'khud' and came to a stop after somersaulting several times. It was 430 p. m. at the time. The road was empty and the accused-applicant must have had a clear view of the road and the adjoining land. It is not denied by the counsel for the accused-applicant that, if the lorry went down the 'khud' because of the own action of the accused-applicant, then he could not be held to have been driving with due diligence and caution.