Honble SHETHNA, J.–Heard the learned counsel Shri Kumbhat for the petitioner and Shri Bhati for the State.

(2). This revision petition is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below conficting the petitioner accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer oneyear S.I. and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further under go one months S.I. and for the offence under Section 279 IPC to suffer six months S.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further under go one months S.I. which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali. On 20.10.1989 in a road accident life of an innocent child of 5 years, who has not even seen the world properly, lost his lifebecause of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner accused who was driving a bus on that day. He drove the bus in such an excess speed and in such a rash and negligent manner that he knocked down a pillion rider sitting on the bicycle from behind and crush under the rear wheel of his bus in the broad day light at about 7 - 7.30 a.m. Not only that he ran away with the bus though person over there raisedshout to stop the bus. After the court below concurrently found that the accused was guilty for the offence under Section 279, 304 IPC for rash and negligent driving, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3). Learned counsel Shri Kumbhat first submitted that no test identification parade was held in this case. He submitted that three prosecution witnesses havefailed to identify the accused. This submission of Mr. Kumbhat looses all its significances when the accused himself stated that he was not driving the bus in rash and negligent manner.

(4). Second submission raised by Shri Kumbhat there was no evidence regarding rash and negligent driving. It is true that merely because the bus was driven inan excessive speed itself would not constitute an act of rash and negligent driving. But, in this case there is an ample evidence that bus was not only driven in an excessive speed but absolutely in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner. The child was a pillion rider sitting on a bicycle and was knowked down from behind by the petitioner while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner andcrushed under the rear wheel of the bus. The persons over there raised shout to stop the bus but he did not even stop the bus and ran away. The Courts below have also considered these aspects and also the `panchnama which goes to show that the petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The facts of the present case speak for itself. No other conclusion can be drawn except that thepetitioner was rash and negligent while driving the bus and an innocent chile of 5 years lost his life.

(5). Mr.Kumbhat then contended that the petitioner should have been given the benefit of probation by the courts below. He submitted that no good reasons are assigned by the courts below for not granting the probation. In support of hissubmission Shri Kumbhat has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in case of Aitha Chander Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1). It is true that in that case the Honble Supreme Court has granted benefit of probation to the accused, it is a small order which I would like to reproduce:

(6). ``This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 A IPC for 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500. After having gone through the judgment of the courts below, we do not find any reason to interfere with the merits of the appeal. The only question that may be considered is if it is a proper case in whichthe appellant may be released on probation. The Sessions Judge had found that there was some amount of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case we think it is eminently a fit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document