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.