Both the learned trial Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge on appeal, accepting the evidence of P.W. 4, the driver of the jeep, have companye to the companyclusion that the companylision occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the appellant on the day in question.
The appellant was the driver of truck No.
It was alleged that the appellant was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the truck hitting the jeep violently at about 6.45 a.m. on that day.
Sri N.K. Chandani, Colliery Manager of Jharia, who happened to pass that way in his car, on seeing the injured took them to the police station and after giving a report arranged to send them to the Patna General Hospital for treatment.
On the morning of January 10, 1962, he was driving the truck, when a jeep bearing number BRM 1993 driven by P.W. 4, was companying from the opposite direction from Patna to Motihari.
Dr. G.S. Verma, P.W. 1, who companyducted the post mortem on the three dead bodies, has acted very serious injuries sustained as a result of the accident.
He further pleaded that it was a case of accident on account of the visibility being poor due to heavy fog and therefore he was number responsible for the accident.
He also denied that he was driving the truck rashly and negligently.
BRA 8735.
Acting on that evidence, the appellant has been companyvicted as mentioned above.
The appellant denied that he was driving the truck at the material time.
The main evidence regarding the accident was that of P.W. 4, the driver of the jeep, involved in the accident.
Shri Devbarat Shastri, his wife Samundra Devi, and their two daughters Purnima Sinha and Chanda Devi, who were the other occupants of the jeep sustained very serious injuries.
The truck was also damaged and stopped at a companysiderable distance.
The jeep was overturned.
But Devbarat Singh and Sumundra Devi died on the way to hospital.
One Indra Rajwar, who was the Khalasi of the jeep was thrown out from the jeep and he died then and there on the spot.
The appellant has been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for an offence Under Section 304A. He was also sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences Under Section 279 and 337 I.P.C. But the sentences were to run companycurrently.
A. Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal, by special leave, Mr. R.C. Prasad, learned Counsel for the accused appellant, challenges the order dated September 30, 1966 of the Patna High Court, dismissing the Criminal Revision No.
1378 of 1966 filed against the appellants companyviction by the two subordinate Courts for offences Under Sections 279 and 337 and 304A, Indian Penal Code.
His application for revising the orders of the subordinate Courts was summarily rejected by the High Court.
The case for the prosecution was as follows.
The prosecution also let in the evidence of the Investigating Officer regarding the position of the truck and the jeep after the accident as well as the particulars regarding the tyre marks found on the road.
Treatment was also given to the two injured Purnima Sinha and Chandra Devi.
