Nand Lal vs The State of Haryana

Gurnam Singh, J.—Nand Lal accused-Petitioner was tried for the offence u/s 304 A, 337 and 279, Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar, convicted Nand Lal u/s 304 A. 337, 279, Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen months u/s 304 A, Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three months each on the other two counts, with the direction that all the three substantive sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hissar, maintained the convictions of Nand Lal accused on all the three counts. The sentence of imprisonment of Nand Lal was reduced to one years rigorous imprisonment u/s 304-A, Indian Penal Code, but his sentence on the other two counts, was maintained.

The facts of the case briefly stated, are that on 20th October, 1972, jeep No. HRH 252 was going to village Kharia. The jeep was being driven by Raj nder Singh P.W, and Sher Singh, Puran Singh, Risala Ram Sham Lal, Lachhmi, Mst. Chandrawati and some minor children vere(sic) sitting therein. When the jeep had covered a distance of two miles after cros-ing village Kurari, truck No. HRH 9058 driven by Nand Lal accused came from the opposite direction. According to the prosecution Rajinder Singh driver of the jeep took the jeep to his left on the kacha portion of the road, but the driver of the truck, who was driving the truck rashly and negligently, struck the truck against the jeep, as a result of which, it overturned resulting into the deaths of Risala and Sham Lal occupants of the jeep and injuries to Mst Lachh-mi. Mst Lachhmi was taken to the hospital at Hissar. The police reached the spot and recorded the statement of Rajinder Singh and the case was registered.

Rajinder Singh, Sher Singh, Mst. Lachhmi and Mst. Chandrawati, P.Ws, have given the occular aocount of the version.

The accused denied the allegations made against him and further stated he was not driving the truck on that day. No defence evidence was produced by the accused.

The plea of the accussd that he was no driving truck No. HRH 9058 is not established because it is apparent from the evidence on record of the case that he was seen with the truck after the occur-rence and his driving licence was taken into possession by the Thane-dar there.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the allegation that the Petitioner was driving the truck rashly and negligently is not proved from the circumstances of the case However, the P.Ws. deposed that the accused was driving the truck rashly and that the driver of the jeep had taken the jeep to the kacha portion of the road but from the perusal of the photographs taken at the spot and after going through the evidence on record, it is apparent that no substantial damage had occurred to the jeep and only the rear and top canvas cove-rags of the jeep on its right side had been damaged. Moreover, from the photographs, the dead-bodies can be seen lying on the road. All this indicates that the hind portions of the jeep and the truck touched each other while crossing and the persons sitting on the hind portion of the jeep fell down and died. If the accuaed Petitioner was driving the truck rashly, some other part of the jeep must have been damaged and the deceased must not have fallen from the jeep. The engine portion of the jeep is intact and similarly there is no damage to the truck in its front portion. Thus it is not case of negligent driving and it appears that some hind portion of the truck entangled in the rear canvas coverage of the jeep and the persons who were sitting on that side were hit and they fell down dead. This view of mine is supported from the statement of Mst Chandra wati, wherein she has stated that the canvas coverage of the jeep etc. had been dragged away by the truck and that the truck might have stopped at a distance of 20 karams from the jeep. Men may lie but circumstances cannot. So taking the evidence as it is, it can be safely said that the accident did not take place due to the rashness of the accused Petitioner, rather it may be the result of misjudgment on his part while taking the truck by the side of the jeep and some projected thing like a hook got entangled in the canvas coverage of the jeep and the accident took place. The conviction of the accused Petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be legally correct. The result is that this revision petition is accepted and the convictions and sentences of the accused Petitioner on all the three counts are set aside and he is acquitted. He is on bail and his bail bond is discharged.