USMAN GANI MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the conviction under Section 304A I.P.C and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed upon the appellant by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 1970. The appellant was acquitted by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri Bombay but the High Court reversed his acquittal.

(2.) On July 19, 1969 at about 10.00 a.m. Vasudeo Patal (P.W. 5) a domestic servant aged about 15 years was escorting two young children of his master, the deceased girl Priti aged about 7 years and her brother Pankaj aged about 9 years, to their school. All the three were walking on the eastern foot-path of Tejpal Road at Vile Parle (a suburb of Bombay) proceeding from South to North. The appellant accused was driving his lorry bearing No. MRS/5167 at that time on that road and was proceeding in the opposite direction (i.e. from North to South). Tejpal Road, admittedly, is 29.5 ft. wide having a foot path of 6 ft. width on its eastern side. While proceeding on the foot-path to the school Pankaj was walking left of Vasudeo while Preeti deceased was walking left of Pankaj, she being the nearest to the carriage-way of Tejpal Road. Though initially they were walking along the foot-path, Prili happened to stop down from the foot-path and about the same time the lorry driven by the appellant-accused came from the opposite side and knocked her down; she was run over and killed on the spot. It appears she was hit by the front bumper and then her head came under the rear left wheel of the lorry and was almost crushed with brain matter coming out. Both Pankaj and Vasudeo started crying. The lorry driven by the appellant-accused eventually halted at a distance of 73 ft. or so from the place where the girl lay dead - about 13 ft. from the eastern foot path Persons collected and at about 10.30 a.m P.S.I. Deshmukh attached to police station Vile parle visited the scene of occurrence and noticed the dead body of the girl as well as the lorry driven by the appellant accused. A Panchnama of the scene of occurrence was drawn and the dead body was taken charge of under another Panchnama and the P.S I. filed his own F I.R. in due course. The appellant-accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC on the allegation of his having caused the death of 7 years old Priti on the morning of July 19, 1969 by driving his lorry in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant-accused denied having knocked down the girl and could not say how the collision occured. According to him people shouted and hence he stopped the lorry but because there was no space on the eastern side he went at some distance and parked his lorry on the western side. He disputed that he had driven the lorry at a high speed or in a rash or negligent manner. The prosecution led evidence of three material witnesses, namely, Natwarsi Karansingh (PW 4), a shopkeeper, having his shop on the western side of the road, Vasudeo Patil (PW 5), the domestic servant and Pankaj (PW 6), the brother of the deceased. The learned Presidency Magistrate felt that the evidence adduced before him was not sufficient to establish the rashness or negligence on the part of the appellant-accused and holding that it was a case of pure accident acquitted the appellant of the charge leveled against him. The High Court in an appeal preferred by the State reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him as indicated above.

(3.) Mr. Parekh, counsel for the appellant, contended that the High Court had erred in reversing the acquittal recorded by the Presidency Magistrate in favour of the appellant-accused. He urged that in their evidence Vasudeo (PW 5) and Pankaj (PW 6) the only two witnesses who had seen the occurrence, had given contrary versions and it was because of such contrary versions that the learned Magistrate felt that the prosecution evidence was insufficient and that it was a case of pure accident. He pointed out that whereas Vasudeo Patil (PW 5) had deposed that the lorry driven by the appellant-accused had mounted on the foot path and had struck the girl Priti whereafter she was run over by the lorry., her head coming under the left rear wheel of the lorry, the evidence of Pankaj (PW 6) was categorical that all the three of them had steped down on the carriageway after leaving foot-path and it was at that time that the girl was first hit by the front left bumper of the lorry, and thereafter she came under the left rear wheel of the lorry. He further pointed out that neither the Presidency Magistrate nor the High Court had accepted Vasudeo's story that the lorry had mounted the foot-path and knocked down the girl. According to him the evidence of Pankaj clearly suggested that the girl Priti must have suddenly gone on to the carriage-way of Tejpal Road by which time the front portion of the lorry had gone past her and thereafter she must have come under the rear wheel of the lorry and as such the incident should be regarded as pure accident for which the appellant-accused could not be held responsible. It is not possible to accept these submissions of Mr. Parekh, as in our view, even after rejecting Vasudeo's story about the lorry having mounted the footpath the High Court had correctly come to the conclusion that the appellant accused had driven his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and had thereby caused the death of 7 years old girl Priti.