- (1.)The petitioner before this Court was the accused in the trial Court, He was convicted by the trial Court for having committed an offence under S.304A IPC. and sentenced to two years RI. He was also convicted for an offence under S.116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to three months RI. He was further convicted for an offence under S.3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100, in default ta undergo SI. for fifteen days. In the appeal filed by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed his conviction for an offence under S.304A, IPC. but altered the sentence to three months RI. and a fine of Rs.1000, in default to suffer SI. for three months. The conviction of the accused for an offence under S.3 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also confirmed but the fine was reduced to Rs.50. His conviction for the offence under S.116 of the Motor Vehicles Act was set aside. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused for the above said offences.
(2.)Sri B.G.Naik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the prosecution has not made out that he caused the death of the deceased by any rash or negligent act. He argues that there is no nexus between the act of the accused and the death of the accused. PW.4 Pakeerappa, the only eye witness examined in the case does not say that the accused drove the tractor rashly and negligently. Merely because the petitioner did not have a licence it does not follow that he was not proficient in driving the tractor. Shri Naik stressed that the intervening circumstance in the case i.e., the hook of the tractor being broken was the real cause of the accident as is evident from the deposition and the certificate given by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. As the tractor was coming down a hillock and as the trailer was loaded with stones and because of the snapping of the hook, the trailer must have hit the tractor which resulted in both the trailer and the tractor being thrown off the road and the deceased who was in the trailer met with his death as a result of the accident. Sri Naik, has strongly relied on the decision in Suleman Rahiman Mulani v, State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829, in Re Natarajan, AIR 1966 Mad 357and in State v. Narhari Anant Naik, AIR 1969 Goa 87, in support of his contentions.
(3.)Shri Mandagi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has stressed the fact that the evidence discloses that the accused had no licence. Shri Mandagi further argues that there is no evidence in the case to show that the acccsed had any experience or proficiency in driving the vehicle. The evidence of PW.4 discloses that when he was driving the tractor along with the accused there were two other persons sitting in the tractor and Shri Mandagi points out that the certificate of the Motor Vehicles Inspector discloses that seating capacity of the tractor was for only one person. It is also stressed that the panchanama of the scene of occurrence does not disclose that there were any brake marks. He has strongly relied on a decision in Bhalachandra v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 1319, in support of his contentions.
;