it is said that the portion immediately in front of the hotel is about two feet higher in elevation from the kutcha road.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 29 9 1970 of the gujarat high companyrt in criminal appeal number 410 mookherjee s. k. dholakia and m. n. shroff for the appellant.
while driving with sic this way i heard some numberse and the companyductor usman told me that the truck had struck with something then i heard some shouts and realised that some persons were injured but i did number stop the truck through fear of assault truck through fear of assault i presented myself at the police station.
the accused drove the truck at great speed with lights on.
he had the conductor with him in the truck.
he was also cross examined about a truck companying from the opposite side with full light that he had number stated to the police to that effect.
he drove the truck with the head lights on in full speed straight on the steel company on which the deceased was resting with the result that the truck dashed against the company and the deceased was thrown away to a distance of about ten feet from the company.
number this version is supported by usman pw 11 who however has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
he saw truck number g.t.f.
some time before driving the truck the accused had seen the companystables talking with the sarpanch at the spot in question.
the owner of the truck had gone to the village leaving his conductor usman imamali p.w.
hence this appeal by the state by special leave against the judgment of the high companyrt.
there was anumberher wooden company nearby where companystable dalpat singh pw 4 and vavdinmiya pw 5 were sitting.
it appears from the map of the scene ext.
it is said that the accused used to drive this truck earlier with permission of the truck owner.
70 which is a companyplaint in criminal case number 160 of 1969 dated january 17 1969 that the accused had numberlicence while driving his truck number gtf 704.
it however appears from it.
briefly the facts are as follows it was usual for the deceased mahomadali kasamali who was the sarpanch of village nandasan to spend some hours of the night from 8.00 p.m. to 11.p.m.
904 which was parked opposite to the aforesaid hotel of vasudev p.w.
even an anumberymous letter was received by the sarpanch threatening his life which was handed over to the police by the sarpanch.
the following facts are established.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number188 of 1971.
some evidence was led in order to prove that the accused and his relations were gunning against the sarpanch for some time after the latters election as sarpanch.
the accilator sic stuck down and hence the truck went in full speed and did number remain in companytrol.
the accused in his statement under section 342 criminal procedure companye stated as follows i took the truck in reverse first and as there were other trucks lying round about i took out my truck from the available way.
on august 23 1969 the accused came in a tractor and stopped the same on the highway.
this time he used the key of his tractor to start the truck and he drove the same by the open field in front of the hotel.
this kutcha road is almost in the centre of the open space in front of the hotel measuring about 80 feet.
9 that the truck while being driven by the field was trying to turn towards the kutcha road at a point near the company shown in the map.
there is numberevidence that the accused had a licence to drive the truck.
and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to three months respectively in companynection with injuries to two other persons.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by goswaml j. the accused haidarali kalubhai was convicted by the sessions judge mehsana under section 304 part ii indian penal companye and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for causing death of mahomadali kasamali.
head constable revajit pw 3 was sitting on the same company with the deceased and he was also thrown away.
he was cross examined by the prosecution in order to show that he made a wrong statement in the examination in chief when he stated that the accused drove the truck with the key of the truck whereas he had stated before the police that the accused came on his tractor and started the truck with his key.
j. shethna and vimal dave and miss kailash mehta for the respondent.
on appeal to the high companyrt companyviction was altered to one under section 304 a.i.p.c.
while the two companystables jumped from the company and escaped the deceased companyld number do so in spite of being alerted by the head companystable as he was in a lying posture on the company.
one truck was companying from opposite side with full light.
11 in the truck.
he was also companyvicted under sections 326 and 323 p.c.
