Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. An abrasion 1" x 1/4" on the posterior aspect of the right arm just above the right elbow joint.

5. An abrasion 1" in diameter on the anterior aspect of the left knee joint.

6. An abrasion 1 inch x 3/4" just below the left knee on anterior lateral aspect of the leg.

7. An abrasion 1" x 1/2" in the anterior medial aspect of the right leg just below the right knee joint.

8. An abrasion 1" x ½" on the right lateral malleolus.

9. An abrasion 2" x 2" on the right trochanteric region.

In the opinion of the Doctor injury No. 1 was grievous and was caused by a blunt object. Injuries Nos. 2 to 9 were simple in nature and were caused by a blunt device. They were less than 8 hours' old. Injury No. 1, the Doctor adds, could have been caused by running over the wheel of a truck. After necessary investigation, the police put up a challan against the accused Niranjan Singh in the court of the Munsiff - Magistrate, Hanumangarh. On November 19, 1968, charges under Sections 279 and 337, I.P.C, were read and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty. In support of it the prosecution examined PW1, injured Kewalram, PW 2 Goverdhan Singh, M.T.O., PW 3 Dhila Singh, Incharge Police Station, Hanumangarh, and P.W. 4 Ramesh Chander, Medical Officer, Hanumangarh. In his statement, recorded under Section 342, Cr. P. C. the accused admitted that he was going from R.3watsar to Hanumangarh in a truck. His vehicle was being driven by another Niranjan Singh. He found Kewalram lying on the road in an injured condition. He stopped his truck and took the injured to Hanumangarh Hospital for treatment. His truck did not collide with him. In his defense he examined Niranjan Singh son of Ram Singh, P.W. 1. The trial court by its judgment, dated January 31st 1970, acquitted the accused Nirajan Singh of the offences under Section 279, 337 and 338, I.P.C, on the following grounds:

To my mind the failure of the driver to keep a look out on the near given side pavement coupled with his failure either to show down or to sound his horn, afford ample evidence to support a finding of negligence at common-law.

There is another aspect of the matter which needs clarification. The accused has been charged under Sections 279, 338 and 339, I.P.C. The question is whether the accused can be convicted and sentenced both under Sections 279 and 337 or 338, I.P.C. Section 279, I.P.C., penalizes rash driving or riding on a public way. A person who drives any vehicle or rides on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person is liable to be punished under Section 279, I.P.C. This offence falls within Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code, which relates to offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals. An offence under Section 279, I.P.C., is essentially an offence against public safety. By Section 337, I.P.C., causing hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others is penalized. Under that Section, whoever, causes hurt to any person by doing an act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others is liable to be punished in the manner provided there under. Under Section 338, I.P.C., whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing an act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life of the personal safety of others is liable to be mashed in the manner provided thereby. These Sections are covered by Chapter XVI, which deals with offences affecting human body. Undoubtedly, Section 279, I.P.C. penalizes rash or negligent driving, but on that account an offence under Section 337 or 338, I.P.C., cannot be said to be of the same nature or character. Offences under Sections 279 and 337 or 338. I.P.C, are offences of deferent nature and the conduct referred to therein is penalized with different object. There is no doubt that the above three Sections overlap, but that does not make these offences of the same character. Offence under Section 279, I.P.C., is non-impoundable whereas offence under Section 337, I.P.C. or 331, I.P.C is compoundable. A reference in this connection is made to the observations of his Lordship Shah J. in State v. Kamla Kar P. Juvekar A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 2669. Thus, the offences under Sections 279 and 337 or 338, I.P.C, being distinct, an accused can be convicted both under Sections 279 and 337 or 338, I.P.C.

11. Viewing the case in all its aspects, I am firmly of the opinion that the accused Niranjan Singh committed the offence, punishable both under Section 279 and 338, I.P.C. I accordingly convict him under these 2 Sections. I sentence hem on the first count to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1-1/2 months. I further sentence him under Section 338, I.P.C. for a period of two months' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. District Magistrate, Gunganagar, is directed to take necessary steps for the arrest of the accused and send him to jail to suffer the sentences awarded to him.