NATHURAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner after notice to the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has been convicted of the offence u/sec. 304 A. I. P. C. The petitioner was the driver of Bus No. R. S. Q, 719. On 16. 6. 78 he was driving the Bus at about 3. 30 P. M. on the road proceeding from Merta to Nagour. At the place of accident labour was working on the road under the P. W. D. contractor M. S. Chiranjilal. While he was so driving, he met with an accident with one Sohini, who died on the spot. A report of the occurrence was lodged by the Manager of that contractor, Shri Samander Singh. Sohini was working on the right side of the road and was throwing 'mud', on the 'kachha'. The accused was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently and collided against Sohini resulting in her instantaneous death. After necessary investigation charge-sheet was presented and after trial, the petitioner was found guilty of the offence u/sec. 304 A. I. P. C. I have been carried through the relevant evidence and I am satisfied that the petitioner has been rightly convicted of the offence. It appears from the facts that the petitioner swerved his vehicle on the right side, though it may be to avoid the accident. His decision to swerve his vehicle on the right side turned out to be wrong. As a result of swerving on the right side of his vehicle, instead of avoiding the accident he met with an accident. There was ample space on the left side of the road but instead of swerving the vehicle on the left side, he swerved his vehicle on the right side. I have perused the site plan and the site inspection note. The bus ultimately stopped at point 'c' and entered on the right side from point 'e' which is at a distance of 52 ft. The very fact that the accident took place on the right side of the road speaks eloquently about the negligence of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner has been rightly convicted for the offence u/sec. . 04 A. I. P. C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged about 50 years and is in the employment of the corporation. He has served for long years faultlessly. The petitioner has faced trial since 1978, 9 years have passed. He may be directed to make payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased and he may be given the benefit of probation Looking to the aforesaid circumstances of the case it would be proper and the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is given the benefit of probation and adequate compensation may be awarded to the heirs of the deceased.