MOHAMMAD ISHAQ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran camp Kota, upholding the order of the learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 3, Kota, dated Jan. 13, 1969 .whereby he convicted the accused-petitioner under S. 304-A IPC, and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The proceedings ensued from the occurrence which took place on April 30, 1967 at 6 p.m. According to the prosecution Latur was driving a bullock cart on the road leading from Badod to Ummaidpura. Two bullock carts were going ahead of it. it is alleged that PW 1 Govinda, PW 3 Girdbari, PW 4 Kasturchand. PW 5 Bherun Lal, Ramswaroop (deceased) and Khatun (deceased) were occupants of the bullock cart at the time of the incident. When the bullock cart of Latur had reached in between Furlong 32 j 2-3213 the bus No. 1UR 1085 driven by the accused came with a great speed and dashed against the rear portion of the bullock cart, of Latur. As a result of the impact Ramswaroop and Khatun were thrown out on the right side of the Bullock cart and the other persons who were sitting in the bullock cart of Latur were thrown out towards the left of the bullock cart. Thereafter, the bus swerved towards the right and after going fora little distance stopped This swerved to the right resulted in running over of Ramswaroop and Khatun, who met instantaneous death. The first information report Ex. P. 5 of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Budhadeet at 7.30 p.m. by PW 2 Latur. PW 8 Dulichand after registering the case against the accused-petitioner under S, 304-A Penal Code came on the scene of the occurrence, and prepared the site-plan Ex. P. 6. The post-mortem on the dead bodies of Ramswaroop (deceased) and Khatun (deceased) was conducted by PW 6 Dr. Prakash Chander. The post-mortem reports are Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 8 respectively. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused-petitioner in the Court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 1. Kota, The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of their case out of whom P.W 1 to PW 5 are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence, PW 8 is the investigating Officer of this case. The accused denied his complicity in the crime. He also denied the driving of the vehicle at an excessive speed or with negligence. He further submitted that the bullock cart driver all of a sudden turned the cart towards the right and came on the main road, and so he swerved the vehicle towards the right with a view to avoide the accident which could not be avoided. The accused-petitioner examined one witness D.W. 1 Surendra Singh in support of his case. The trial court disbelieving the defence varsion and placing reliance on the statements of the prosecution witnesses held the accused-petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under S. 304-A, IPC, and sentenced him mentioned above. The appeal filed by the accused-petitioner also failed and hence this revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. V. S. Dave has vehemently challenged the conviction of the accused petitioner and the learned Public' Prosecutor has supported the judgement of the trial court.

(3.) The crucial point that merits consideration is whether or not the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that it the time of the occurrence Mohammad Ishaq was driving the bus in a rash or negligent manner or so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life and the death of Ramswaroop and Khatun was the direct results of the rash or negligent act of the accused.