SANTOSH LAMANI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision application, the Applicant impugns the Order dtd. 7/9/2021, passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Mapusa, in Sessions Case No. 7/2018. By that order, the Court framed charges for offences under Sec. 304(ii), 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) The facts in brief reveal that the Accused was a driver of a tipper truck no. GA-05-T-1805, which had broken down in the Page 1 of 6 23/3/2022 908-CRIR-59-2022-F.DOC middle of the NH-17 highway, at Naibag, Pernem, partially obstructing vehicular traffic. The truck broke down in the wee hours around 01.30 hours on 20/1/2017 within the jurisdiction of the Pernem Police Station. The Accused allegedly left the vehicle at the spot where it broke down viz on an ascending slope. No hazard warning lights were switched on and no signs were put up near the vehicle to warn vehicles approaching the spot of the fact that the tipper truck had broken down. A Tata Safari vehicle which was proceeding from Patradevi to Dhargal, collided with the stationery tipper truck at about 01.30 hours. As a result, the front seat passenger suffered injuries and succumbed to his injuries and other occupants suffered minor and grievous injuries. The Court framed charges under Sec. 304(ii), 337 and 338 of IPC along with Sec. 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Accused appearing in support of revision submitted that the charge of Sec. 304(ii) of IPC was unwarranted. The tipper truck suffered a break down and was rendered immobile. He submitted that the gear box and mechanicals were removed for repairs and the truck could not be moved. At best, this is a case of negligence but not one which could attract Sec. Page 2 of 6 23/3/2022 908-CRIR-59-2022-F.DOC 304 part II. Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for the Applicant, therefore submitted that no case was made out for framing the subject charges.