NARSINGH LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application on behalf of Narsinghlal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, dated the 28th of February, 1961, by which he maintained the conviction of the petitioner under sec. 304-A I. P. C. and the sentence of four months' rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Magistrate, First Class, No. 2 Jaipur City.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Narsinghlal petitioner was driving Truck No. RJL.-1487 and was passing through Kalyanji-ka-rasta in Jaipur City from the New Colony side, on the 6th of March, 1959, at about 11. 00 A. M. Sulochna, a girl of about 5 years, daughter of Ghisa Lal, was also going in that street in the same direction as the truck. THE front bumper of the truck struck Sulochna. She fell down and the truck passed over her right leg. THE truck stopped and the girl was taken out from beneath the front wheel and was taken to the hospital where she died after about 24 hours. THE allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner failed to blow the horn and was driving the truck at an excessive speed in a crowded lane of Jaipur City. When the truck was examined by Mr. Daruwala Mechanical Transport Officer, Police Lines, Jaipur City, it was also found that the service brakes of the truck were very weak and it could not have been brought to a stop abruptly and the parking brakes did not operate at all. THE learned magistrate came to the conclusion on the evidence on record that the truck was driven at a speed of about 20 to 25 miles an hour which was excessive in view of the crowded locality where the truck was being driven. He also found that the service brakes were very weak and parking brakes could not operate at all. In view of these circumstances, he held that the petitioner was guilty under Sec. 304-A IPC. as he caused the death of Sulochna by doing a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. He was convicted under Sec. 304-A IPC. and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was no definite evidence with regard to the speed at which the truck was being driven but it was proved that the service brakes were very weak and the parking brakes did not operate at all. THE learned Sessions Judge took the view that driving a truck in a crowded and narrow lane like Kalyanji-ka-rasta in a condition in which the service brakes were weak and the parking brakes did not operate at all was dangerous and it was rash and negligent act of the accused to have driven such a truck which could not be controlled in emergency. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal.