Vivek Singh Thakur JUDGMENT
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. Petitioner has been convicted by learned trial Court under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC for causing death of Shyam Lal, grievous injuries to Balwinder Singh and simple injuries to Ajit Singh while driving Three-Wheeler bearing No. HP50-0394 rashly and negligently endangering human life on public way on 24.9.2001 at 8.30 p.m. Conviction and sentence imposed upon petitioner has been affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan.
2. On fateful day P.W. 1 Balwinder Singh, P.W. 2 Ajit Singh and deceased Shyam Lal were ridding scooter being driven by P.W. 2 Ajit Singh. Petitioner coming from opposite direction struck his three-wheeler with scooter causing injuries to occupants of the scooter which had ultimately resulted death of one of the occupants of the scooter.
3. Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that accident in question causing death and injury had occurred on account of negligence on the part of occupants of scooter whose driver had struck his scooter with three-wheeler and occupants were riding scooter without wearing helmet by taking risk of life themselves which is real cause of the accident as the scooter driver had lost control of scooter and had struck on back side of three-wheeler for which petitioner cannot be held to be driving three-wheeler in rash and negligent manner causing injuries to the occupants of scooter resulting into death of one of them.
4. He has further contended that the accident causing death of one of the occupants is a result of contributory negligence on the part of occupants of the scooter, therefore, petitioner is liable to be acquitted. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred mechanical report of three-wheeler Ex. P.W. 7/K and Mechanical report of scooter Ex. P.W. 7/L. He has argued that as per these reports there were fresh scratches on rear portion of body of three-wheeler and mudguard, leggaurd, beading and top of left side of the scooter and glass of headlight of scooter was also broken and therefore these reports rule out head on collusion but indicates that scooter had struck against three-wheeler on its rear portion for which driver of three-wheeler cannot be held responsible.
5. Petitioner has also relied upon judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in case Sanjay Arora vs. Pritam Singh and another reported in MANU/HP/0054/2005 : 2006 ACJ 1163 HP, in which relief to claimant in a Motor Accident Claim case was denied on account of contributory negligence. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred findings returned in the said judgment in following paras:-
"21. The scooter is meant actually for two persons, i.e. driver and the pillion rider. The scooter is not expected to be ridden by three persons. When three persons who are under the influence of alcohol go on a scooter ride, it is clear that they are asking for a trouble to say the least.
22. Section 128 of the motor Vehicles Act reads as under:-
"128. Safety measures for drivers and pillion riders.-(1) No driver of a two-wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle and no such person shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the motor cycle behind the driver's seat with appropriate safety measures.
(2) In addition to the safety measures mentioned in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, prescribe other safety measures for the drivers of two-wheeled motor cycles and pillion riders thereon."
6. In the aforesaid judgment, there was evidence on record that three persons were riding the scooter under influence of alcohol. Further claimants in that case had intentionally withheld ........