A person who drives a vehicle rashly or negligently and causes the death of another person is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

K. C. Bhalla and J JJ.

1. ). An accident tool place on 26-9-1979 at 7.15 a. m. near oetroi post along Delhimathura road, as a result of which a boy aged 4 years named Prem was killed instantaneously. Truck No. HRB 8661 which was coming from the side of Delhi and proceeding towards Mathura at great speed was involved in that accident. P. W. Govardhan who was the side of canal and PW Nanak Chand who was standing by the side of the road had witnessed the occurrence, according to whom the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. After the accident the truck stopped for a while and then the driver of the truck i. e. petitioner Ranfit Singh sped away towards Mathura. Fortunately a tourists bus came from the side of Delhi immediately thereafter. PW Ramesh Ahuja got into that bus and chased the truck which was being driven away with an idea to escape. After covering some distance truck was stopped near a petrol pump of shri kirpa Ram and driver concealed him self in a Dhaba. Ramesh Ahuja having noticed truck No. HRB 8661 parked there got down and located the driver and then brought the truck as well as driver to the spot. Case was registered against Ranjit Singh petitioner for crushing the boy under the truck and thus making him responsible for causing death by negligence punishable under section of PW Covardhan. The truck was taken into possession by the police, its driver Ranjit Singh was apprehended and after and after performing the necessary formalities with regard to the investigation of the case, he was challenged.

2. On trial the trial Magistrate, vide his judgment dated 7/9-11-1983 convicted accused Ranjit Singh under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year as well as to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of which fine he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. He was also convicted under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with the direction that substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Ranjit Singh preferred appeal which, vide judgment dated 14-3-1985 of Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad, resulted in confirmation of convictions and sentences and the same was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said decisions of the courts below, present revision petition was preferred on behalf of petitioner Ranjit Singh.

3. After hearing the parties counsel, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the findings of the trial Court or lower Appellate Court. Occurrence took place during day time and it was witnessed by two independent persons namely Govardhan and Nanak Chand besides many other persons who were present by the road-side. It is admitted in the grounds of revision itself that the road in question is full of traffic. Both those witnesses who had no animus whatsoever against the accused have consistently stated that the truck in question was being driven at great speed. It is clear report Exhibit PF that the dead body of the child was lying on one side of the road. Even otherwise drivers of such vehicles are requisite care and caution. Sec.279 of the Indian Penal for the person who drives any vehicle or rides on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life of to be likely to cause same, question of contributory negligence on the part of the victim does not arise.

4. Contention with regard to the identity of the person involved in the accident too is devoid of any force. Govardhan (PW 4) has clearly stated that No. HRB 866 came with great speed from the side of Delhi and the same was being driven by Ranjit Singh accused present in Court. Nanak Chand (PW 6) has stated in unequivocal terms that he heard noise to the effect that an accident had been done by truck No.8661. These contentions of theirs have not been effectively challenged in cross- examination. It has also come in e