Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. After hearing the learned advocates for both the parties, the learned Magistrate analysed and appreciated evidence led by the prosecution and ultimately he came to a conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for offences punishable under Secs. 279-304A of I.P.C. and also under Sec. 112 and 116 of the M.V.Act. He, therefore, by rendering his judgment Exh.29 dated 22/02/1991, convicted accused under Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for aforesaid offences. Accused was heard on the point of quantum of sentence. When he was heard on the point of quantum of sentence, accused submitted that the person who suddenly emerged from behind the S.T.bus while crossing the road, was at fault, and that he (accused) had taken all due care and caution, and therefore, accident has not taken place due to his negligence as alleged by the prosecution. He also submitted that he had taken all care to avert the accident for saving the life of the deceased. In short, accused has not expressed his regret for the accident but he has found fault with the deceased saying that the deceased suddenly emerged from behind the S.T. bus, and therefore, due to negligence of deceased, accident has occurred.