SANT LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated February 2, 1972, whereby the conviction of the accused-applicant under sec. 337, 304 (A) and 279, IPC was sustained.

(2.) THE facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that a report was lodged with the police on 18-5-1969 by Pritam Singh that at about 12. 30 p. m. when he was going to meet his friend Dalip Singh, a truck coming from Hindumalkot and going to Kota had struck down a cyclist resulting in his death. THE driver was driving the truck with a great speed, and as such, necessary suitable action be taken against him. THE accused was challaned and sent for trial before the Munsiff Magistrate, Ganganagar. THE learned Magistrate convicted the accused-applicant under sec. 279, IPC to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; and under sec. 337, IPC six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. He was also convicted under sec. 304-A, IPC to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine of Rs. 500/- to simple imprisonment for one month, and in default of payment of Rs. 2,000/- to simple imprisonment for six months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run separately.

(3.) THE respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered, and the record of the case carefully perused THE prosecution has led no evidence to the effect as to how and in what manner the collision took place. THEre is a material contradiction which has not been reconciled with. PW/10 Balbeer has stated that the truck collided with the tree first, and then when he regained consciousness, he saw that the cyclist has been killed. THE learned trial Court has placed reliance on the site-plan, and has held that the cyclist was run over first, and the truck collided with the tree later on. THE prosecution has produced four important witnesses. PW/1 Kanhaiya Nath does not corroborate the prosecution story. PW/2 Pritam Singh, who has lodged the First Information Report, and PW/10 Balbeer, who was sitting on the truck, have been declared hostile; and PW/9 Gordhan Singh is a Mechanical Inspector, who examined the truck after the accident. According to this witness, the truck had defective brakes. THE foot-brakes could work only after three or four strokes, and the hand brakes were not working. Steering had free-play also. It is on the basis of this evidence that the learned Courts have maintained the conviction of the accused-applicant. THE learned counsel for the accused-applicant has relied on Jagir Singh vs. State (1) wherein it has been held that it is now well settled that when a witness, who has been called by the prosecution, is permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution, the result of that course being adopted is to discredit that witness altogether and not merely to get rid of a part of his testimony.