RHEA KAMAT Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Counsel with Shri Terence Sequeira, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri G. Nagvenker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

(2.) Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner invited attention to the judgment under challenge where the learned Additional Sessions Judge had taken into consideration the fact that the accident took place at the junction and that the accused ought not to have been at a fast speed. It was his contention that there was no justification for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to record a finding that the driver of the car ought to have exercised caution and slowed down being at a junction and that the fast speed at a location which was a junction would be sufficient to hold that it was prima facie evident that she was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle in question. He adverted to the statement of the complainant and of another, the panchanama of the scene of accident alongwith the sketch and more particularly the panchanama of the Hyundai vehicle in question which showed that there was a dent at the rear door and also produced photographs on record showing the position of the dent on the front right side of the vehicle at the junction of the front and rear door which in his submission ruled out the impact of the Hyundai car with the scooter in question. He placed reliance in P. Ramchandra Rao v/s. State & Ors. [(2002)4 SCC 578] and referred to Sec. 258 CrPC for stopping of the proceedings and besides adverted to the Accident Report Form of the scooter in question which clearly indicated that the front brakes of the scooter were not in order. He placed further reliance in State of Maharashtra v/s. Goutam [1977 Cr LJ 403] and that in Peter v/s. State and Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No.6 of 2015] to advance a case that the powers of the Court had to be exercised judiciously in the matter of invoking its jurisdiction under Sec. 258 CrPC and that therefore it was a fit case to quash the impugned judgment and order the discharge of the petitioner from the proceedings initiated against her under Ss. 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC.

(3.) Shri G. Nagvenker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, pointed to the spot of impact being in the middle of the junction by drawing attention to the sketch forming an integral part of the proceedings and submitted that the offending vehicle was a 4 wheeler Hyundai car which was driven at a fast speed. It was his contention that the Kinetic scooter was driven at a reasonably slower speed being a two wheeler and that the petitioner who was approaching the Miramar Circle from the side road from Dempo College had a duty cast on her to drive with reasonable care while approaching the junction at the Miramar Circle. Her lack of exercise of due care had resulted in the accident and therefore the petition had to be dismissed and no orders could be passed in her favour for her discharge from the proceedings.