STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SADANAND PARUSHARAM HOSURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises an issue of safety with regard to a very simple and common place of practice that is being permitted to continue by default and which is responsible for the loss of several valuable lives, as has happened in this case, particularly of young persons. The deceased Afzal along with one Jameel were double riding on a bicycle at Station Road, Khanapur, at about noon on 14-1-1994. It is alleged that a tempo coming from the opposite direction which was being driven by the accused collided with the bicycle as a result of which Afzal sustained head injuries of some seriousness. He was shifted to the local hospital but in view of his condition, he was being moved to the better equipped hospital at Belgaum but unfortunately, he died on the way to the hospital. The police arrested the accused who was the tempo driver and charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 279 read with 304-A, IPC. The defence had contended that Afzal was wearing rubber chappels and that one of them had given way as a result of which he lost control of the cycle and came into the pathway of the tempo resulting in the incident. The trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences and the present appeal is directed against the order of acquittal.

(2.) AT the hearing of the appeal, the learned SPP submitted that the evidence of P. W. 10-Jameel who admittedly was riding on the carrier of the bicycle clearly indicates that it was the tempo which collided with the bicycle and he submits that it is self-evident from Jameel's evidence that it was the tempo driver who was operating the vehicle rashly and negligently. He relies on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4 who claim to be eye-witnesses both of whom blame the tempo driver for the manner in which the vehicle was being driven and state in their evidence that it was the tempo which collided against the bicycle. The submission canvassed was that the panchnama of the scene of offence will give some idea of what precisely took place in so far as the bloodstains start from the centre of the road and secondly, that there was a distance of about 15' between the tempo and the bicycle and thirdly, the learned SPPsubmits that the most important aspect of the case is that there were no skid marks which would conclusively establish that the tempo driver did not even apply the brakes. The submission is that all this evidence taken together clearly establishes rashness and negligence and that the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside and the accused deserves to be convicted.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent, what is pointed out to me is that the evidence of P. W. 10 Jameel who admittedly was on the bicycle along with Afzal in terms indicate that it was he who jumped off the bicycle just before the collision took place. Jameel was uninjured and he admits to the fact that Afzal was riding the bicycle virtually in the centre of the road. What is pointed out is that the various witnesses have admitted that there were very few people on the road and that there was no other traffic and that in this background, the rules of the road require that the cycle should have been ridden close to the left side of the road and not in the centre of the road. This was the first breach of the law. Secondly, what is pointed out to me is that under the provisions of the Traffic Control Act though the original provision prohibited the carriage of more than one person on a bicycle, that by amendments carried out in the years 1986-87 to Section 14 of the Act and the Rules, the State Government virtually granted permission for more than one person to travel on a bicycle. Learned Advocate who represents the respondent-accused submits that the present case is a classic instance of a loss of life that has occurred almost entirely because of such a situation because P. W. 10 admits that he was travelling on the carrier of the bicycle and that he jumped off moments before the collision took place and the submission is that because of this sudden movement by Jameel that Afzal lost control of the bicycle and collided with the tempo.