Laxman Dass vs State of H.P.

Deepak Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, in Cr. Appeal No. 7 of 2001 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present Petitioner and upheld the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog dated 23.12.2000 in police challan No. 56-1 of 2000 whereby he convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 u/s 279 IPC, for one month simple imprisonment u/s 337 IPC and for a term of six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- u/s 304A IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant PW-1 Yash Pal alongwith 3-4 other persons, namely, Sandeep, Girish and Motu Ram were sitting on the railing of Pangna Bridge on 14.6.1999 at about 5.30 p.m. Bus No. HP-30-2595 came from Karsog side. It is alleged that the bus was being driven in an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the accused. The accused could not negotiate the curve, broke the parapet on the driver side of the bridge and dragged and crushed the persons sitting on the bridge. Resultantly, Sandeep and Girish succumbed to the injuries whereas complainant sustained some minor injuries. On the basis of the complaint made by PW-1, F.I.R. was registered. The Investigating Officer PW-16 went to the spot and prepared the site plan Ext.PW-16/A. He conducted the other investigation and after completion of investigation a challan was filed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. This is a concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Courts below.

It has been urged before me that the deceased and the complainant themselves were negligent in as much as they were sitting on the railing of the bridge and they also had contributed to the accident since a railing is not a place meant for a person to sit. The photographs Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-13 and the site plan Ext.PW-16/A show that the width of the road is 13 feet x 10 inches and on both sides of the road next to the railing there is a platform approximately 1 feet in width of either side. Obviously, this platform is meant for pedestrians to walk on. The bus is not supposed to climb on this platform. The deceased and the complainant were sitting on the railing which is at one side of the platform.

From the site plan it is also obvious that there is a sharp curve immediately before the bridge. What is a rash and negligent driving depends on the facts of each case. Speed by itself may not amount to rashness. However, when any driver is approaching a bridge after a sharp curve it is not only prudent but extremely expedient that he should reduce his speed. The evidence on record shows that the accused did not reduce the speed and resultantly hit and crushed the three persons out of whom two unfortunately died on the spot. Speed of the vehicle is apparent from the fact that after hitting the platform, the complainant and the deceased, the bus travelled for a distance of 60 feet dragging the three persons therewith. In such eventuality the finding of the learned trial Court that the accused was guilty of rash and negligent driving is totally justified and calls for no interference.

The petition is accordingly dismissed. The Registry is directed to inform the trial Court about the judgment who shall issue necessary warrants to ensure that the accused undergoes sentence imposed upon him.