GOLAM JILANI KHAN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, a driver, has been convicted under Sections - 304 -A and 337 , Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months under the former count without any sentence being passed under the latter and the same has been confirmed in first appeal.

(2.) THE Petitioner, as alleged by the prosecution, on 16 -2 -1968 driving a truck bearing No. ORC -5098 loaded with 200 bags of cement and was proceeding from Pipili side towards Kanark side. At a place called Rencha the said truck dashed against a cyclist, ran over a man named Jateswar Aluka who was sitting on the carrier of that cycle and killed him on the spot and dashed against a bus that was standing there though the engine was in motion. The plea of the Petitioner is that he was not driving the truck rashly and negligently.

(3.) THE admitted facts are that near Rencha the road takes a curve. A bus was standing there covering four feet of metalled road to the left and passengers were getting down and boarding the bus. The truck in question was proceeding from the opposite direction. A cycle driven by Benudhar Das with Jateswar Aluka sitting on the carrier was passing at that time when the truck in question was negotiating the place of occurrence. It was argued on behalf of the Petitioner that as the cyclist suddenly came from the right to the left, the accident took place, for which no body is responsible. In this connection a series of citations, such as Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra : A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1616, Mahadeo Harilokre v. State of Maharashtra : 1972 A.C.J. 185, Krishna Chand and Anr. v. State of Haryana : 1971 A.C.J. 73, were cited. It is unnecessary to refer to these citations which lay down the same proposition that it must be held that the death caused is the direct result of rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. In other words, it must be the causa causano ; it is not enough that it must have been the causa sine qua non. The other principle accepted is that merely from high speed rashness and negligence cannot be ascertained and there must be direct nexus between the death of the person and the rash and negligent act of the accused. There is no dispute about this principle of law for in this case it is a question of fact. The evidence is that the accused did not blow horn. The motor vehicle expert says that there was no mechanical defect and that at the time he took trial the brake was not functioning. It is also the evidence that the truck dashed against the body of the standing bus so violently that the mud -guard of the truck got bent and touched the tyre. This is only possible after, the front bumper has got bent A portion of the body of the bus came out and some inmates of the bus sustained injuries. That apart, Jateswar who was sitting on the carrier of the cycle fell down and was run over whereas the rider of the cycle Benudhar Das fell down and got certain injuries. It was contended that the vehicle in question was moving at a speed of 15 miles or so per hour. If that were so, by application of the brakes with the load on, it would have been stopped within 2 cubits and there could not have been such an impact of the bus after running over the cyclist sitting on the carrier. When the road was taking a curve and a bus was standing and a cyclist passing, the Petitioner should have been more cautious ; but as the facts speak for themselves, he was both rash and negligent; and the death of the man, injuries to others and dashing against the bus are the direct result of his rash and negligent conduct in driving the truck. If the truck was all right and there was no mechanical defect, the Petitioner was obviously guilty of rashness and negligence in not blowing the horn and not applying the brakes at the right time. In the alternative, if the brakes were defective, he should not have driven the truck with that load resulting in the death of one and injuries to others and damages to the bus. This is a case where the principle of res ipsa loquitur, which means, fact speaks for itself, applies? See Pitabas Panda v. State, 1960 C.L.T. 97. As such, I see no reason to interfere and the argument that there was error of record is inconsequential. The petition is rejected.