State vs Moohammadsab Urf Baba

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The accused is convicted for an offence punishable u/s 279 and 304-A IPC. The trial court imposed sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- for an offence u/s 279 IPC and Rs. 1,000/- for an offence u/s 304-A IPC. The State is in appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.

The evidence discloses that a lorry was hired for transportation of the sugarcane crop from the lands Kumbar Ganavi village. On that day there was heavy downpour, the road was a mid road. The lorry got struck up in the slush mid. With the help of the tractor, the said lorry was extricated and was parked by the side of the road. The accused had also brought his lorry for transportation of the sugarcane from some other land from the same village. While so proceeding with sugarcane load he hit against the stationery lorry which ran over one Rasoolsab who was trying to untie the rope connecting the tractor and the lorry.

The facts and evidence discloses that the accused had not seen the deceased and had no knowledge that the deceased was working in front of the stationery lorry trying to untie the rope. The act of the accused in dashing against the stationery lorry may amount to rash and negligent driving. Because with the head lights the driver of the offending vehicle should have been able to see the stationery lorry and with diligent driving could have avoided the accident. The death of Rasoolsab cannot be directly attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The accused had no knowledge of the deceased working in front of the lorry and he could not foresee the consequences of the negligent act. Therefore conviction of accused u/s 304-A is bad in law. The accused may be convicted only for an offence u/s 279 IPC. The conviction u/s 304-A IPC is set aside. The appeal of the State seeking enhancement of sentence for an offence u/s 304-A IPC is untenable. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction u/s 279 IPC and the sentence imposed is confirmed.