GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. Atom Bomb Vs. Automobile Bomb. Nagasaki lost 35,000 to 40,000 lives on account of Atom explosion, Hiroshima 70,000 which in 1945 it resulted in surrender of Japan exis power to Allies.

2. Automobile Bomb, more dangerous then Atom now, when 40,000 Bhutanis have been crushed and killed by Automobile invasion leaving 175000 injured-crippled, in 210000 reported accidents, in India in 1986. One can expect at least four times unreported accidents in India in country side, as primarily is else people believe in Ignorance, Blind dogmas of Fatalism and keeps World record in to tolerating injustice, exploitation, injuries and aggression, may be Automobile or Atom.

3. The Automobile Invasion therefore goes on increasing in Geometrical proportion, whereas preventive and punitive measures to check its grows in Arithmetical proportion as per Mathuss theory in Economics.

4. My deductions is "one year mandatory minimum imprisonment" recommendation for churning process of Legislative cum Judicial debate. It should be accompanied by fine of Rs. 15000/- to be paid as compensation to deceased legal representatives, without prejudice to civil claim.

5. Bhutani is 1974 casualty when the automobile Invasion claimed below 15000 such Bhutanis, in India.

6. Now let me come to Bhutanis narration proper, in traditional manner, after above untraditional preface :

7. A precious human life of a young Engineer was lost on account of the accident when the truck struck an Auto-risckshaw and then overrun the injured who fell out of the auto-rickshaw and died in Kota on 11th July, 1974. The deceased was none else but Umesh Chand Bhutani.

8. The sentence under section 304 A which has been imposed in this case is one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/-. Yet even after concurrent finding of the two courts that Bhutanis death occurred on account of the accident which was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver Amar Lal, the accused has filed this revision petition for holding that he is innocent and claiming acquittal. Ofcourse this is not prejudging the matter, but deduction at the conclusion of arguments, after taking mental decision and not before.

9. Mr. Biri Singh, pointed out that the mistake was of the auto-rickshaw driver and not of the truck driver and Amar Lal was the truck driver, and therefore the truck driver cannot be punished simply because he was driver of the heavy vehicle a truck in comparison to auto-rickshaw. He has taken me through the relevant record in order to support the submission made by him.

10. Mr. Shrimal and Mr. Purohit, Public Prosecutors have vehemently opposed the revision petition.

11. In the instant case it is true that some of the witnesses who happened to be the employees of the truck owner or the labourers boarding the truck, have tried to oblige the truck driver by admitting the accident but disowning the responsibility of the driver. This is not unusual, because the economic dependence of these persons on the truck owner, whose drivers conviction and ultimately pecuniary responsibility in a civil case may bring financial serious liability to the truck owner and the criminal liability on the driver and it overrides the respect for truth.

12. It is clear from the record that the truck driver not only struck the auto-rickshaw, by going towards it rashly and negligently but when Bhutani fell down, the young Engineer was over run by the wheel of the truck and his body could be taken out only when lateron the truck was moved in reverse side. It is significant that Shri Mahesh Chandra Mathur who appeared on behalf of the prosecution and who was auto-rickshaw driver, has given a graphic description of the accident. The fact that he himself was injured and rushed to the police station and filed the FIR is not in dispute. The FIR filed by him is corroborated by statements and the medical evidence and the circumstantial evidence, which all prove rashness and negligence of the petitioner truck driver.

13. Mr. Singhs comme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document