- (1.)THESE two revisions by Bhanwarlal and Laxmansingh are directed against the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated 30th September, 1958 convicting both of them under Section 304-A I. P. C. and sentencing them to 1 3/4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 501/-each in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months and under Section 337 I. P. C. to three months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.
(2.)THE case relates to a highway collision which took place on 18th November, 1956 at about 9 A, M. on the Gajner road at a distance of 8 miles from Kolayat and 24 miles from Bikaner between Bus No. RJZ 59 driven by Bhanwarlal and RJF 16a driven by Laxmansingh, It appears that Bus No. RJZ 59 was going from Bikaner to Kolayat and the other Bus No. RJF 163 was going from Kolayat to Bikaner and while they were passing each other their bodies collided and the impact was so strong that a number of persons travelling by these buses died and received grievous injuries. In Bus No. RJZ 59 one person died and four received simple (injuries. In Bus No. RJF 163 three persons died on the spot, one more died in the hospital on the night of the accident and four persons received grievous as well as simple injuries. After the accident Bus No. RJZ 59 stopped at a distance of 165 paces and RJF 163 at a distance of 35 paces. The width of the road where the accident took place is 24'. Near the place of the accident there is a culvert where the width of the road is only 21'. The mechanical examination of these buses revealed that both hand and foot brakes of Bus No. RJZ 59 were not in working order while the foot-brake of Bus No. RJF 163 was out of order. Finding of the courts below is that both of them were driving the buses at a fast speed and lost control of the vehicles they were driving which resulted in the accident.
(3.)LEARNED counsel appearing for Bhanwarlal took exception to a common judgment having been delivered by the learned Sessions Judge. His objection was that the learned Sessions Judge did not go through the record of his case at all and based his findings on the evidence recorded in the other case i. e. , of Laxmansingh. He has pointed out that the learned Judge's observations that none of the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined was not correct in his case. This criticism appears to be true and therefore instead of sending the case back, I have allowed him to place the entire evidence before me. On going through it, I find that no prejudice has been caused to him by a common decision of the case by the learned Sessions Judge. In fact the evidence in both cases was of the same persons.
;