AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned trial Judge I note that the petitioner has been held to be the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. MTK-8767. It has been held that driving the same rash and negligently the petitioner caused the accident as a result of which the pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.RJN- 3417 died.
The appellate remedy failed. The order of conviction dated 12.10.1995 has been upheld vide impugned order dated
12.08.1997.
Counsel for the petitioner argues that the infirmity in the two impugned orders is non-consideration of the site plan Exhibit P-2 and the testimony of the mechanic who inspected the jeep and deposed as PW-3.
The site plan Exhibit P-2 shows that the accident took place on the road from village Sarat to village Chura at a place where it has a 90? bend. The jeep was driving towards village Chura. The motorcycle was coming from the opposite direction and travelling towards village Sarat. The accident is on the extreme left side of the road if one is driving towards village Chura. This means that the jeep was being driven on the correct side of the road and the motorcycle came on to the wrong side of the road. This aspect has been missed by the two learned Judges. The testimony of PW-3 also brings out that the collision was not head on. The damage to the jeep was on the right side. This means that the motorcycle and the jeep collided when the motorcycle hit the jeep on the right
side. This also establishes the fact that it was the driver of the motorcycle who came on to the wrong side of the road.
Without going into the controversy whether it was the petitioner who was driving the jeep or the owner of the jeep Raju who has deposed that the petitioner was driving the jeep, in my opinion the site plan Exhibit P-2 and the testimony of PW-3 far from establishing that it was the jeep which was the offending vehicle establishes that the motorcycle was the offending vehicle and the fault was with the driver of the motorcycle who was examined as PW-9.
The revision petition is allowed. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence of driving rash and negligently and causing the death of Rupa Ram i.e. of the charges for offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 & 304A IPC.