P.D.KUDAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a criminal revision against the order of the learned Addl Sessions Judge. Kota dated 8 -2 -1972. The accused was tried the learned 278 and 304A, IPC by the learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate, No. 4 Kota and was Sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC and one year's rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300 for under the offence Section 304A, IPC, in default of payment of fine he Rs. 300 for to undergo further simple imprisonment for two month The substantive sentences were orderd to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 13/3/1962 at about 6.30 P.M the accused was driving the truck RJR No. 3123. The truck was coming from Jhalawar side. One Ram Chandra and his son. aged 6 years, was standing on the one side of the road in expectation of a bus. The mother of Latur was standing on the other side of the road. The child Latue tried to cross the road, and while doing so. he was run down by the truck resulting in his instantaneous death Latur was struck down on the right hand side of the road when be was only 2 to 3 ft. away from the foot -path after covering a distance of 20 to 25. The prosecution case is that the accused was driving the truck at a great speed, and was thus acting rashly and negligently. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses in support of the case. The statement of Prosecution was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he his admitted that the child Latur was struck down by his truck, but he has pleaded that the no fault on his part. The child suddenly wanted to cross the road, and as such collided with the rear left wheel of the truck. Under these circumstances, no liability can be fixed on the accused. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. The accused applicant was convicted as indicated above and his appeal before the learned Addl Session. Judge, kota met with no success. On behalf of the accused -applicant it was contented that the judgments of the lower Courts are no judgments in the eye of law, as the evidence has not at all been properly screened and analysed. It was contended that the father of the boy Ram Chandra (PW 3) was declared hostile other witnesses had changed their version subtantially in comparision to their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C before the police. It was further contended that the road was clear and the truck was moving at a normal steed and that the child all of the sudden took into his mind to (sic) he road, and, and collided against the rear left wheel of the truck. Under these circumstances, it was contended that the accused cannot be held responsible for the negligent act of the child himself. It was also contended that the Mechanical Inspector had examined the vehicle, but he was not produced in evidence, which goes to show that the vehicle was in perfect condition.
(3.) ON behalf of the State, it was contended that a Court of revision has a very limited jurisdiction, and that the learned lower Courts have come to the conclusion that the accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently as a result of which the child was run over, and was lulled on the spot. It was further contended that the very fact that the truck could stop only after having covered about 80' from the place where is collided with the child, goes to show that the truck was bung driven at a high speed.;