MUTHUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against conviction and sentence. The revision petitioner is a bus driver. While driving his vehicle on 29th April, 1983, at about 10.30 P.M., in Mount Road, Madras, he hit four persons, one mother and three children. The mother died on the spot, two children died later in the hospital and another child survived with simple injuries. The bus was stopped ten metres away from the place of impact. The trial Court found the accused guilty under Secs.304-A (three counts) and Sec. 337, I.P.C. and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appellate Court set aside the conviction under Sec. 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and confirmed the convictions under Secs. 304-A (three counts) and 337, I.P.C.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner very strenuously contended that there was neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the driver - revision petitioner herein so as to convict him for an offences punishable under Sec. 304-A (three counts) and Sec. 307, I.P.C. He argued that the vehicle being loaded and having stopped ten metres away from the place of impact should have run only at 25 kilometres per hour as per the indications found under R. 307(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940. He would urge that the accused drove the vehicle at a speed inferior to the maximum speed permitted by the Rules in Madras which is 45 kilometres per hour. THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further add that the driver would have applied brake only at the time of impact, since as per the case of the revision petitioner the victims crossed the road all of a sudden and he did not see them earlier, especially because there was another lorry with head lights on coming in the opposite direction. It is a fact that the mother and children crossed the road at a place which was not earmarked for pedestrian crossing. Nevertheless, even causing death of a person in that place would amount to an offence if the driving is found to be rash and negligent. As per Sec. 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver should have regard to all the circumstances of the case, while regulating his speed, such circumstances being the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at that time or which might reasonably be expected to be in that place, etc. One of the important circumstances put forth by the accused himself is that there was another vehicle coming in the opposite direction of dazzling the driver and practically blinding him with light. Under those circumstances, by driving at 25 kilometres per hour he certainly committed a rash and negligent act and therefore there is no doubt that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under Sec. 304-A. As far as the sentence is concerned; it is submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1983, that the petitioner has already undergone week of imprisonment, and that it will not be just and proper to send him back to prison after such a long space of time. I find that a fine could meet the ends of justice.