Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2290 (RAJ)

Mag Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-11-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by petitioner Mag Singh challenging the order dated 28.10.1993 passed by the learned M.J.M., Sanchore in Criminal Case No.195/1990 whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 279 I.P.C. 1 months RI & a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days SI. U/S 304A I.P.C. 6 months SI & a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days SI. 3. The conviction order dated 28.10.1993 has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore vide order dated 28.7.1994.4. Mr.Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the deceased was a labour and was sitting on the cabin of the truck. The petitioner whilst driving the truck came across the flowing water and was taking out the truck from the flowing water when suddenly the tyre of the truck went into the caved in portion of the road due to which the truck overturned resulting into the fall of the deceased and ultimately meeting his death. It is submitted that as such, the act of the petitioner cannot be said to be rash and negligent because firstly the petitioner could not have known that the road had caved in and secondly that the deceased was himself responsible as he was sitting at the non-designated place of the truck and that the rash and negligent act of the deceased was the cause of his death. As such, it is submitted that the act of the petitioner is not rash and negligent.5. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has deliberately acted rashly and negligently when he drove the truck into the flowing water. It is submitted that the petitioner should have waited for the water to recede and then only the truck should have been driven across the road which was submerged under water.6. I have considered the arguments advanced at bar and perused the orders impugned as well as the record of the case.7. A perusal of the site inspection plan reveals that the truck has overturned at a place where the water was flowing on the road. I have considered the arguments advanced at bar and perused the orders impugned as well as the record of the case.7. A perusal of the site inspection plan reveals that the truck has overturned at a place where the water was flowing on the road. Though it is true that the petitioner should have been careful whilst driving the truck through the water but there is no evidence on the record of the case to show that the water level was such that the truck could not have been taken through the same. The truck has overturned because of the road being damaged and, therefore, the petitioner cannot alone be said to be responsible for the accident in question. The deceased being a labour working on the truck, was not acting in a prescribed manner whilst sitting on the cabin of truck, and was himself responsible for rashness and negligence because the roof of the truck is not a place where the person is permitted to sit. Thus, the act of the deceased itself contributed to his demise. Having considered these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the act of the deceased in sitting on the cabin of the truck itself was an act of rashness and negligence and the petitioner cannot be said to be responsible for that. That apart, there is no material on the record of the case from which it can be inferred that the level of the water was above the danger mark prescribed and despite that, the petitioner drove the truck and unless & until there is an evidence to this effect, it cannot be said that the act of the petitioner in putting the truck into flowing water was rash and negligent. In view of this, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained.8. Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds and the conviction of the petitioner awarded vide judgment dated 28.10.1993 as affirmed in revision vide judgment dated 28.7.1994 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.Revision allowed. *******