A. Pasayat, J.
1. Petitioner assails conviction and sentence awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bissam, Cuttack confirmed, in appeal by learned Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore.
2. Petitioner stood trial under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and 118-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short the 'MV Act'). According to prosecution, on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, truck bearing registration No. ORR 1291 dashed against one Purna Chandra Pradhan, who suffered serious injuries and subsequently breathed his last in the Christian hospital, Bissam, Cuttack.
3. Several witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case, and on evaluation of evidence, learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He specifically referred to the evidence of the M.V.I. (P.W. 11). Learned Magistrate held that offences were clearly established and.therefore, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count under Section 279/304-A of the IPC. He further directed petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 118-A of the M.V. Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The appellate court confirmed conviction and sentence.
4. Main plank of petitioner's argument is that evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly established that the truck was being driven at a very slow speed and therefore, conclusion that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner does not stand to reason. From the evidence on record, I find that there is no definite material to show that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Speed of a vehicle is not always determinative of the question whether vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. A vehicle driven at the speed of about 50 K.M. in an empty road may not amount to rash and negligent driving, but driving of a vehicle in a crowded area even at 30 K.M. may amount to rash and negligent driving. It would depend upon manner of driving. There is some amount of contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses about the speed. While some of the witnesses have stated that the vehicle was being driven at a very slow speed, evidence of the M.V.I, is to the effect that possibility of vehicle being driven at a high speed cannot be ruled out, looking at the skid mark. As indicated above, speed is not determinative factor of rash and negligent driving. Therefore, in the absence of definite material, it would be unsafe to convict the petitioner under Section 279/304 of the IPC.
5. The residual question is whether petitioner has contravaned provisions of Section 118-A of the M.V. Act. Under Section 89 of the M.V. Act when any person is injured or any property of third party is damaged as a result of accident, in which a motor vehicle is involved, driver thereof or any other person in charge of the vehicle shall take all reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured person, and if necessary to move him to the nearest hospital, unless the injured person or his guardian in case he is a minor desires otherwise. In the instant case, admittedly requisite steps had not been taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner makes a submission that when an accident takes place, normally reaction of the people is to assault the driver, and out of fear the petitioner has escaped and therefore, it cannot be said that there was dereliction of duty as provided under Section 89 of the M.V. Act. When the legislature prescribed a specific duty, a definite attempt should be made to comply with the requirement, and admittedly, that having not been done, the petitioner was guilty of offence under Section 118-A of the M. V. Act. Conviction of petitioner under Section 118-A of the M.V. Act is therefore, sustained and fine imposed with default sentence there against is maintained.
It is submitted that in the meantime, petitioner has been in custody for more than default period. On verification of records, I find the submission to be correct. In view of the said situation, petitioner need not again be teken to custody. His bail bonds be discharged.
Criminal Revision is disposed of accordingly.