J.D. Jain, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 304 -A Indian Penal Code, by Shri K S. Khurana, Metropolitan Magistrate, vide his judgment dated February 14, 1977 and was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, vide his order dated February 15, 1977. He preferred an appeal and the same was disposed of by Shri B.B. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, who maintained his conviction as well as the sentence on the aforesaid charge. Hence this revision petition. The prosecution version succinctly is that on July 7, 1974 at about 3.15 p.m. the Petitioner was driving motor -cycle bearing registration No. DHM 6115 on Rohtak Road while going to his village from the side of Bahadurgarh. One woman was riding the pillion. All of a sudden the motorcycle dashed against milestone No. 24 with the result that the woman, who was sitting on the pillion, was thrown off with force. The motor -cycle rebounded on account of forceful impact with the milestone and fell away. The Petitioner too sustained injuries as a result thereof. In the meantime, one truck bearing No HRR 3228 came from the side of Bahadurgarh. It removed the injured to a hospital.
(2.) ON receipt of the information Assistant Sub -Inspector, Daulat Ram, proceeded to the spot and recorded statement of the Exhibit PW5/A, Rampat, who was present there and happened to see this horrible accident. After investigation the Petitioner was challenged . Rampat, the only eye -witness to the occurrence, turned round during the course of trial and did not support the prosecution. According to him, while he was going towards the road from his village on the relevant date he heard the sound of impact and went to the spot. He then found that the motor -cycle etc. were lying near the milestone. However, he denied having seen the occurrence as such.
(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has sustained the conviction of the Appellant for the said offence on the ground that the very fact that the motor -cycle hit the milestone showed that the accused was negligent and rash. It is pointed out that the milestone was evidently beyond the kacha beam of the road and as such the motor -cycle of the Petitioner could not have run into the milestone unless he had lost complete control over it. He has disbelieved the explanation furnished by the Petitioner in the course of his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that his motorcycle hit against the milestone No. 24 because the wheel of the motor -cycle bad slipped when he was trying to save himself from colliding against a truck which was coming from the opposite direction at a very fast speed on the wrong side and in order to avert the collision he had taken his motor -cycle on the kacha portion of the road.;