HUKMA RAM @ HUKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition Hukma Ram has challenged the judgment of learned Sessions Judge Jaisalmer Date 15.3.1999, by which he confirmed the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer dated 19.12.1997 by which petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows : - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_80_LAWS(RAJ)5_1999_1.html</FRM>

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. I gone hrough the record of the case.

(3.) Briefly slated, Amritlal gave a statement on 15.3.1991 to a police officer Jaisalmer wherein he stated that he went in bus No. RJM-799 from Jaisalmer to Adbala which was being driven by the petitioner Hukmaram. The bus was over loaded. About 15 passangers sat on the front side and on the roof of the bus. The bus started from Jaisalmer at about 3.30 P.M. It went about 6 K.M. away from Jaisalmer. Road was steep. The petitioner over took the two buses. He rashly and negligently drove the bus. Another bus over took bus driven by pettioner, but the petitioner again took over the same bus and left the road and moved toward left side. The bus collapsed. Passengers who were sitting on the roof fell down. Some of them were crushed under the bus and others suffered a large number of injuries. Shivdan, Mehtab Singh, Madan Singh died at the spot. Another 50-60 passangers suffered injuries out of them five or six passengers suffered serious injuries. They become consicious. Another bus which was coming from behind took away certain persons to Jaisalmer. Statement Ex. P/1 is the FIR. Police registered a case. Investigation was stalled during which injured persons were examined by the doctors. Doctor found fractures on the bodies of certain passengers. He X-rayed Perhalad Ram, Ladna Khan, Bhagwan Singh, Dhanjiram, Khjura who had suffered grievous injuries, Postmortems of Mehatab Singh, Premaram, Madan Singh, Shivdan, Roop Singh Chandan Smgh, Nichlaram, were conducted as they expired either at the time of accident or thereafter. After investigation petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under which he was to be convicted.