STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PETER PRANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent to this appeal Peter Prank, driver of K. S. R. T. C. Bus No. 8559 which was operating between Mangalore and Davangere. On 23-1-1993 at about 5. 30 p. m. while the bus was passing Pundanahalli Gate it was involved in a collision with a bus coming from the opposite direction after which the bus ultimately dashed against a tree and came to a standstill. Six of the passengers were injured and one of them by the name of Rudramma who was a relatively aged person died as a result of the accident. The police registered offences under Ss. 279, 337, 338, 304-A, I. P. C. and under S. 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the accused. He was tried by the learned Addl. J. M. F. C. , Tarikere and the learned trial Magistrate recorded the finding that the evidence of the injured witnesses does not bring home the charges and, therefore, acquitted the accused. The State has assailed the correctness of the acquittal through the present appeal.

(2.) AT the hearing of the appeal, the learned Addl. S. P. P. Sri Koti and the respondent's learned Advocate Sri Lokesh Malavalli have taken me through the record of the case which consists essentially of the evidence of the eight injured witnesses, the medical evidence and the other formal evidence. There is no dispute about the fact that six of the passengers did sustain injuries and that one of them who was rather seriously injured, died in the hospital on 4-2-1993. The learned S. P. P. has relied on the evidence of these witnesses for purposes of demonstrating that the bus was being driven at a high speed. None of the witnesses have been able to indicate precisely what the exact speed of the bus was but they are consistent about the fact that the bus was being driven at a high speed and P. W. 6 even states that he was getting nervous because of the high speed and manner in which the bus was being driven and that he had even spoken to the accused and told him about it. Mr. Koti's submission is that the evidence of these witnesses who are obviously adults who have travelled in buses on numerous occasions indicates that the speed was excessive and this was why it was uncomfortable and noticeable and they have referred to it. His submission is that the speed at which the bus was being driven would have a bearing on the aspect of rashness and negligence because Mr. Koti has made an important point when he submits that the legal test as regards rashness and negligence which requires that in relation to the operation of a motor vehicle and that too a public transport vehicle, the refusal or negligence to take necessary care and caution as is required to ensure the safety and well being of other persons on the road or more importantly the passengers in that very vehicle all the important criteria which need to be assessed by the Court. His submission is that where the witnesses are consistent about the fact the bus was being driven at a very high speed would indicate that it was being operated not only in a rash and negligent manner but in a reckless manner.

(3.) THREE of the witnesses whose versions are more or less identical indicate very clearly that the accused had overtaken three buses and that he did this in total defiance of the fact that there was a bus coming from the opposite direction. The incident had taken place at 5. 30 in the evening i. e. in broad day light and the evidence indicates that the accused had got on to the wrong side of the road to overtake the three buses and that he did this despite the fact that there was on coming traffic. Mr. Koti drew my attention to the Rules of the road and the requirements of law in relation to overtaking another vehicle and he pointed out that these requires that before overtaking it must be ascertained that there is a sufficiently clear stretch of open road available while overtaking and thereafter for the vehicle that is overtaking to safely retrace its position on the left side of the road. There is a total prohibition on overtaking unless there is a clear road ahead and Mr. Koti further points out to me that if there is on coming traffic and a driver still attempts overtaking that he will still either ahead for a collision with the oncoming vehicle but more importantly will cause a serious accident by cutting into the path of the vehicle that is being overtaken. He therefore, submitted that this evidence which has not been dealt with at all by the trial Court unequivocally establishes both the legal ingredients of rashness and negligence.