Sant Singh vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.—This is a revision filed by the Petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Sections 304-A and 279, Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that on 18.2.1984 the Petitioner was driving a tractor with attached trolley. Ram Chander and another person were sitting in the tractor-trolley which (trolley) was also carrying a thrasher. The tractor was proceeding from the side of Mohna bus stand towards Ghhainsa. It is further case of the prosecution that the tractor was being driven at a fast speed. When the tractor-trolley reached Chitrawali Pokhar, one of the incumbents of the trolley (Ram Chander) fell off the trolley while his clothes got entangled in it. As a result, he was dragged to a considerable distance. It was thereafter only that the Petitioner stopped the tractor. Ram Chander was transported in that very tractor-trolley to civil dispensary, Mohna, where he died soon after reaching there. Shiv Dutt PW 1, Sohan Lal PW 2 and Babu Ram PW 7 witnessed the occurrence.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and gone through the record. The counsel argued that there is no evidence on the file to prove that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. Shiv Dutt PW 1 has deposed that he had gone to ease himself in the evening. He saw a tractor coming at a great speed from the side of Mohna and a trolley was tied with it. A thrasher was laid in that trolley and two persons were sitting therein. One of them fell down. His clothes got entangled in the trolley and he was run over by it and removed to the civil dispensary. This witness could not identify the driver of the tractor-trolley. Sohan Lal PW 2 deposed that the Petitioner was driving the tractor at a fast speed. One person fell down from the tractor-trolley and his clothes got entangled in it. Babu Ram deposed that the Petitioner was driving the tractor-trolley at a fast speed. Two persons were sitting in the trolley in which one thrasher was also placed. When the tractor-trolley reached near Chitrawali Pokhar, Ram Chander deceased fell down, his clothes got entangled in the trolley and he was dragged to a considerable distance. Multiple injuries were found on the person of Ram Chander who was removed to civil dispensary, Mohna, where he succumbed to his injuries. Shiv Dutt PW 1 was declared hostile at the request of the prosecution. The Learned Counsel has argued that, in view of the statement of the eye-witnesses, as mentioned above, no evidence to satisfy the ingredients of the offence has come on the file in order to maintain the conviction of the Petitioner.

I have considered the arguments and find some merit in the same. The prosecution has not led any evidence to disclose the identity of the second man who was present in the trolley along with the deceased. He has not been cited as an eye-witness nor any explanation is given why he was not being produced. He was the best man to know how the deceased fell down from the trolley but this evidence has not been brought on the file.

The eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution do not disclose how the deceased fell down from the trolley and what part the Petitioner played in the death of the deceased. A person driving a tractor cannot know what is happening in the attached trolley. Whether the deceased fell down from the trolley incidentally or he was thrown by his companion or he got imbalanced due to bumpy road, is not known. In the absence of any positive evidence that the death of the deceased was the direct result of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley by the Petitioner, his conviction for causing the death of the deceased cannot be maintained. There is no evidence to connect the Petitioner with the crime. In this view of the matter, this revision must succeed. The convictions and sentences of the Petitioner are, therefore, set aside and he is acquitted of the charges.