9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (8) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Indian Penal Code. 2. One Desa Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), according to the prosecution case as unfolded in the evidence of three witnesses, viz., Mukhtiar Singh, PW2, Om Parkash, PW 3 and Jagir Singh, PW 5, who were eye witnesses to the incident, was going on a cycle along the Rohtak Road from West to East at about 10 a.m. on 16th June 1966. When the deceased came near Liberty Cinema which is situated on the southern side of the Rohtak Road, he turned to the right in order to enter Road No. 3 after giving a signal with his hand. It may be mentioned that here at this point Road No. 6 from the south meets Rohtak Road so that the Liberty Cinema on its north abuts on the Rohtak Road and on its east abuts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uck against the bus and consequently he was dragged with the bus for some distance and the appellant brought the bus to a halt on the passengers raising an alarm. The appellant was examined under Section 342 of the CrPC and what is stated in his examination is rather important. He stated in answer to a question put to him by the learned Magistrate: when I heard an alarm to the effect 'stop, stop', I stopped the bus. I did not see any cyclist being knocked down by the bus. Then in answer to another question, he added : I did not see the deceased being dragged. When I heard the alarm I stopped the bus immediately. The learned Magistrate on this evidence held that the appellant was negligent in driving the bus and that the death of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the conviction of the appellant. The learned single Judge accordingly confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant and dismissed the revision application. Hence the present appeal by special leave obtained from this Court. 5. Now it is obvious that the question whether the appellant was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and the death of the deceased was caused on account of his negligent driving is a question of fact which depends for its determination on an appreciation of the evidence. Both the learned Magistrate trying the case at the original stage and the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing the appeal arrived, on an assessment of the evidence at a concurrent finding of fact that the deat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing whether the finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the High Court and the subordinate Courts is correct or not. It is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice that this Court would interfere with such finding of fact Here, not only is the appreciation of the oral evidence by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court eminently correct, but there are certain tell tale circumstances which clearly support the finding of fact reached by them. 6. We will assume for the purpose of argument that the appellant was driving the bus at a speed not exceeding 20 miles per hour. That appears to be so, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
