SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by Sadhu Singh against the upholding of his conviction by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur District by judgment dated 19th Jan., 1991 awarded sentence under Sec. 304-A IPC.

(2.) The first informant Mahaveer alongwith his nephew Dharampal aged 9 years was going to attend Nukta of the death of mother of Prema Gujar to village Ameth alongwith several other persons of the village. His nephew Dharampal with 2-3 other small childrens were going near the road-side and Mahaveer, Ram Dayal and Bahadur were behind them. At about 10 a.m. Truck No. URJ-279 came at a fast speed and the truck ran over Dharampal under the tyres of the truck. The driver of the truck did not stop and drove away the truck at a fast speed. Dharampal died on the spot. On this report Ex. P. 2 of Mahaveer, the SHO. Police Station, Kotputli, registered a case under Sec. 304-A Penal Code and after necessary investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli after trial found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sec. 279 and 304-A Penal Code and for the former offence the petitioner was fined with Rs. 500.00 and for the letter with 6 month's simple imprisonment and further with a fine of Rs. 2,000.00. Out of the amount of fine, an amount of Rs. 2,000.00 was ordered to be paid to Bharta Ram, father of Dharampal deceased. As against this conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal which was decided by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur District on 19th Jan., 1991. The Addl. Sessions Judge, partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner in as much as he set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec. 297 IPC. It is against the conviction and sentence under Sec. 304-A, that the petitioner has come in revision to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that courts below without considering whether the petitioner was driving in a rash and negligent manner convicted him on the sole basis that he was driving the vehicle at a high speed. It was urged that the incident took place on a National Highway and it cannot be expected from a driver to drive his vehicle at a very slow speed on a National Highway. In the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner was rash and negligent in his act, the conviction and sentence under Sec. 304-A Penal Code could not at all be warranted. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the incident took place on 3rd May, 1983 and it would be too hard to send the petitioner to jail after the expiry of a period of more than 9 years. 3-A. The Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, in his judgment has stated that two sets of witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The first set of witnesses consists of Mahaveer P.W. 2, Ram Singh P.W. 4 and Jitendra P.W. 8 who had deposed that the petitioner was driving at a fast speed and the truck hit Dharampal. They further deposed that the petitioner did not stop the truck after the truck accident & drove-away the same. The other set of witnesses consists of Ram Dayal, P.W. 1, Bahadur P.W. 3 and Ram Karan P.W. 5 who saw the dead-body of Dharam Pal after the accident.