SAROJNEI SAKSENA, J. - (1.) THE accused Kartar Singh was convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, I.P.C. and sentenced to 4 months R.I. for an offence under section 279, I.P.C., 4 months' R.I. for an offence under Section 337, I.P.C. and 18 months' R.I. under Section 304-A, I.P.C., with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default 6 months' R.I. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The accused preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence, but that too was rejected by Shri R.S. Madan, Additional Sessions Judge II, Bhiwani by his judgment dated 25th January, 1988. Hence this revision.
(2.) THE learned defence Counsel relying on M.H. Lokra v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 221, contended that from the prosecution evidence adduced in this case, it is evident that the rickshaw was coming down the slope. It had three passengers and certain household goods were also loaded therein. Observing the approaching tanker, the rickshaw puller lost balance and collided with the tanker. The tanker was on the left side of the road. Thus it is apparent that as the rickshaw suddenly dashed against the tanker because the rickshaw puller lost the control, it would not have been held that the accused was driving the truck (tanker) rashly or negligently. M.H. Lokre's case (supra) is distinguishable on facts because in that case a pedestrian suddenly crossed the road without taking note of the approaching Bus and he dashed against the Bus without the Driver becoming aware of it. Under these circumstances, it was held that Bus Driver could not save the accident, however slowly he may be driving and, therefore, he cannot be held to be negligent, in such a case. In this case, the prosecution has examined Ram Sarup (PW-1) an eye-witness and Mange Ram (PW-2) who was a passenger in the fateful rickshaw and who sustained injuries in this accident. These two witnesses have categorically stated that the truck was coming at excessively high speed though they were not able to state the speed in terms of kilometres per hour, but on that account alone, their sworn testimony on this score could not be rejected.
(3.) THE learned defence counsel further stressed that from the evidence of these two witnesses named above, it is evident that the truck stopped at a distance of 20-25 paces from the place of the accident. Hence there was no material before the trial Court to conclude that the accused was driving the truck rashly and negligently. In support of this contention, he has relied on Krishna Bahadur Chetri v. State of Assam, 1979 Criminal Law Journal 1258.;