Dave, J.—This is an application in revision by accused, Arjun Singh, who has been convicted by the Magistrate, First, Class, Udaipur under sec. 429 I.P.C. and sec. 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to an aggregate fine of Rs. 350/-. In default of payment of the fine, he has been sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. He went in appeal to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, but was unsuccessful and therefore he has come to this Court in revision.

2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 26.7.54 he was driving a truck No. RJY—347. He was going from Udaipur towards Bhakra Ghati and when he was passing over a bridge some cattle were coming from the opposite side. It was alleged that he was driving at a dangerous speed with the result that his trucks truck against one buffalo belonging to one Mst. Umaidi Bai. The buffalo fell down the bridge and received various injuries which resulted in her death 8 days after. The accused denied in the trial court that he was driving the said truck or that his truck had struck against Umaidi Bais buffalo. The trial court, however, believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. The appellate court has also believed the prosecution story to the effect that (1) the accused was driving truck No. RJY—347, and (2) that it had struck against Umaidi Bais buffalo. Since these are questions of fact, I see no ground to interfere with the finding of the courts below on these two points in revision.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that even if it be conceded that Umaidi Bais buffalo was hit by the truck of the accused when he was driving it, it cannot be said that he had committed an offence either under sec. 429 I.P.C. or 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is contended that in order to establish an offence under sec. 429 I P.G. the prosecution has to prove that the accused had committed mischief by killing the buffalo. It is pointed out that in order to prove an offence of mischief, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused intended to cause or that he knew that he was likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to Mst. Umaidi Bai and since these ingredients of the offence have not been proved, the courts below have committed grave mistake in convicting the accused under sec. 429 I.P.C.

4. As regards the offence under sec. 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is contended that the prosecution had failed to prove if it had complied with the provisions of sec. 131 of the said Act. Secondly, the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was driving recklessly or dangerously.

5. So far as the conviction of the petitioner under sec. 429 I.P.C. is concerned, it has been conceded by learned Deputy Government Advocate that he is unable to support the judgment of the courts below. The trial court as also the appellate court appear to have found the accused guilty under sec. 429 I.P.C. simply because the buffalo was injured by the truck of the accused having struck against her body and she died 8 days after. In order to prove an offence of mischief however it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused had an intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. In the present case it was not the allegation even of the complainant that the accused had any grouse against her and that he intended to cause or that he knew that he was likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to her or to the public. Moreover, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the accused had committed mischief by killing the buffalo as envisaged by sec. 429 I.P.C. It was only accidentally that his struck against the buffalo and she fell down from the bridge. Whatever may be the responsibility of the accused to compensate Mst. Umaidi Bai for the loss of property caused by him to her in a civil court, it cannot be said w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document