J.M.L.Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS revision arises out of the judgment dated 30th March, 1978 passed by the Sessions Judge Dehradun dismissing the appeal that was filed by the present applicant against his conviction and sentence u/Secs. 279 and 337 IPC.
(2.) ON 5th October, 1974 at about 10.30 p.m. the applicant was driving truck No. USK, 3495 on the Gandhi Road, in a rash and negligent manner with the result that when he reached the crossing of Raja Road he knocked down Indra Singh, who was then on a cycle. A little distance ahead he knocked Jogendra Singh, who was coming on a scooter. Both Indra Singh and Jogendra .Singh received injuries. ON these allegations the applicant was sent up for his prosecution for the aforesaid offences. During his examination in the trial court the applicant admitted that he was driving the truck on the date, time and place alleged. He, however, pleaded that he was not driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident took place because of the negligent acts of Indra Singh and Jogendra Singh. The trial court held the applicant guilty of both the offenoes and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for each of them. Aggrieved against it, the applicant filed an appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun which resulted in dismissal and hence this revision.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant in the first instance urged that there was no evidence to warrant a conclusion that the accident took place on account of any rash or negligent act on the part of the applicant. On a perusal of the record I find that this contention bears no substance. Indra Singh P. W. 5 and Jogendra Singh P. W. 4 who received injuries in the two accidents, themselves entered the witness-box to make statements on oath to the effect that the applicant was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. THEir statements found support from the spot inspection made by the investigating Officer. It appears therefrom that alter knocking down Jogendra Singh, the truck collided against a traffic light post and then against a wall. Unless the applicant was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, he would not have lost control so that the truck would have collided against the traffic post and the wall. Thus on the evidence of Jogendra Singh and Indra Singh P. Ws. and from the spot inspection, it was apparent that the accidents took place on account of the applicant's driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel next contended that in any case, the applicant could not have been convicted both under sections 279 and 33/ IPC. Learned counsel urged that section 337 IPC being a major offence, conviction, if at all, could be recorded thereunder only. I find substance in the argument. Section 279 IPC makes punishable driving any vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life. In order to constitute an offence u/S. 279 IPC it is not necessary that the person charged should have caused hurt to any man The offence u/S. 337 IPC has two ingredients, viz. : (i) That the person charged with an offence thereunder does any act so rash or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety, and (ii) That he thereby causes hur. to any person.;