The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a driver to exercise caution and adhere to traffic rules, emphasizing the need for deterrence in sentencing for offenses related to rash and negligent driving.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the revisionist, Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This revision has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentencing dated 31.7.1996 by 7th A.C.J.M. Agra, in Crl. Case No. 265 of 1995 (State of U.P. Vs. Data Ram) under Section 279, 304-A I.P.C. And the order of dismissal of the appeal dated 3.4.1999 passed by 5th A.S.J. Agra, (Data Ram Vs. State of U.P.) by which the revisionist-accused was awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2,000/- fine with default stipulation to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment in case of non-deposition of fine.

3. The revisionist has taken ground that the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in respect of Tempo's side on which it was stopped and which was the main cause of the accident. The learned trial Court has accepted that near the place of the accident tempo was standing on the wrong side and which was the main cause of the accident. The Courts below have discarded this fact only on flimsy ground holding the revisionist guilty for driving the Bus negligently, in arbitrary manner and illegally. The finding recorded by the Courts below in respect of the speed of the Bus is based on conjectures and surmises. Only because the Bus was stopped at a distance of 2 or 4 paces away from the place of incident, it can not be said that the speed of Bus was 50 or 60 km per hour at the time of incident.

4. The above fact itself is a sufficient proof that the Bus was driven by the revisionist very carefully and there was no negligence on his part in driving the Bus. Both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that in case the Bus would be driven by the revisionist negligently, the driver would not stop the Bus and would escape from the place of the accident. The injuries of the deceased are in itself sufficient proof that the same were not on account of crushing beneath the wheels of the Bus and the same may occur by colliding with back of the Bus and for that the revisionist could not be held guilty for rash and negligent driving. The judgement and orders of both the Courts below suffer from the manifest error of law and deserve to be set-aside, hence, the revision be allowed and both the impugned orders be set aside.

5. In brief, facts of the case are that on 12.3.1992 the informant Shyo Raj Singh was going to Khadauli with his grand son Yogesh Singh, Giriraj Singh, Mangal Singh, Keshav Singh and Jagdeep of his village when the tempo reached near the Nagla Bigha, the towel fell down for which Yogesh got down from the Temp. By that time Bus driver Data Ram of Bus No. PUH 4490 rashly and negligently hit him and he got injured and died on the spot. Giriraj Singh, Mangal Singh, Keshav, Jagdeep and informant had seen the incident, they caught the accused and carried to the police station where a case under Section 279/304-A I.P.C. Was registered. The I.O. Started the investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan and got the Bus technically examined. The inquest report, challan lash, photo lash, letter to C.M.O. and R.I. were prepared and the autopsy of the dead body was done by the P.M. Doctor.

6. After conclusion of the trial, a charge-sheet was submitted on which cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate and statement of the accused was recorded in which he said himself to be innocent. He said that he was plying the Bus, the accident is not the result of his negligence but the deceased himself had collided with the Bus.

7. The prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove the prosecution version: