RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though none appears for the petitioner, with help of learned Public Prosecutor I have perused the record.

(2.) The petitioner was the driver of a jeep bearing Registration No.RJN. 445. The jeep collided with a bus bearing Registration No.RJ-28P-0142. The bus was stationery. The passengers were deboarding. One passenger who was removing luggage from the roof fell as a result of the impact and died. Charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 279/304A IPC, the learned trial Judge convicted the petitioner for both the offences vide judgment dated November 22, 2001 and vide sentence of even date directed the petitioner to suffer S.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and pay fine in sum of 1000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for 10 days. For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC the petitioner was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of three months and pay fine in sum of 100/-. Appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Court of Sessions vide impugned order dated January 23, 2002.

(3.) Though both the Courts have noted the testimony of PW8, Mahendra Singh, M.T.O. who had inspected the jeep after the accident and his report is Exhibited P7 but I find the appreciation thereof to be not applying recognised principles of law . The report would show that the brake oil of the main cylinder had leaked. During cross examination the witness had admitted that on account of the brake oil having leaked the brake could have failed. He also admitted that the brake oil could leak when the jeep was in motion. The learned Court of Sessions has simply noted the said testimony but on personal knowledge has held that the petitioner would be presumed to be driving negligently. The learned Judge has recorded that he has often seen the jeeps being driven fast to reach a bus wherefrom passengers are deboarding. The intention is to pick up as many passengers who deboard.