TULSIRAM SITARAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TULSIRAM s/o. Sitaram, a ferry contractor, of village Tamaswadi, and his two servants Koudu and Shripat, have filed this revision application against their conviction under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, confirmed by the Sessions Judge. The applicant Tulsiram is sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- and applicants Koudu and Shripat are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 25/- each. Imprisonment in default of payment of fine has also been imposed.

(2.) ON the two banks of river Kanhan are villages Tamaswadi and Potaghat. For the people of Tamaswadi to come to Nagpur they have to cross the river in boats. Ferry service is provided by licensed ferry owners under the control of the Janpad Sabha, Ramtek. The applicant Tulsiram was so licensed to provide ferry service between these two points in the year 1959. He held licence for this purpose from 1-6-1959 to 30-9-1959. The Janpad authorities made rules for issue of such licences and the conditions of the licence are to be found in Ex. P-5. Tulsiram did not have a licence with him for the period on or after 1-10-1959. But it appears he still plied boats for ferry service. Tulsiram's case is that he had applied for renewal of his licence. There is evidence to the contrary on record in the testimony of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer On 11-10-1959 early in the morning passengers were waiting for being transported in a ferry from Tamaswadi to Pola Ghat. It appears a couple of trips were made by two boats in the ownership of Tulsiram. Two boats were tied together with an iron rope and passengers used to be carried from one bank to the other both ways by Tulsiram and his servants. At about 7 o'clock about 35 passengers were put In two boats and among them were several women and men with their luggage. River Kanhan was in floods but the floods were receding according to the evidence on record. However, passengers it appears, were keen to cross the river as they wanted to come to Nagpur. Tulsiram, of course, had offered ferry service for transporting them. When the boats with the passengers which were being ferried by Tulsiram and his two servants came in mid-stream on account of floods and waves induced by floods wafer was lashing against the sides of the boat. Unfortunately, one such heavy forcible wave lashed against one of the boats which resulted in creating confusion among the passengers as well as the accused persons. The passengers in the boat which was SO attacked by the wave seemed to have gone on one side, thus unbalancing both the boats. This resulted in both the boats turning turtle and the passengers being thrown in water. Both the boats capsized and the passengers were unable to catch anything to save themselves. Some of the passengers ultimately succeeded in reaching the banks while a few others had to pay with their lives; one such passenger was one woman Janibai who was completely drowned and it was only her dead body which was found on the bank. Two other women passengers became unconscious while several others suffered similarly. The accused persons themselves were thrown out of the boats and could with difficulty come to the bank.

(3.) A report of this incident was made by the Sar Panch of village Tamaswadi the same day and it is exhibit P-1 on record. The report says that about 35 passengers were carried in two boats of the applicant Tulsiram; and when the boats capsized it resulted in the unfortunate accident. Investigation was made by the police. As a result of this report the accused have been prosecuted for causing death of Janibai and some others whose identity is not established by rash and negligent act of putting the boats in water for ferrying passengers in spite of the river being flooded and thus running the risk to the lives of the passengers. The prosecution called in evidence two of the passengers Gopala and Gulab who were in the unfortunate boats but who had succeeded in surviving the accident. In addition, the prosecution relied on the evidence of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer Shri Madhav who deposed that the licence required to be taken for ferry service by Tulsiram had expired on 30-9-1959 and that he bad not a valid licence with him nor was there any application for renewal of the licence pending in the office. Under the rules for ferry service made by the Janpad authorities, the boats had to bear water mark to indicate weight which should be carried, whether of passengers or of goods while ferrying from one bank to another. According to the prosecution, the two boats were not worthy of being used for ferry service. They were leaking, had holes and did not bear water mark as required by the Janpad rules.