COLLIN MAKSON Vs. THE STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against concurrent finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco da Gama and the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao holding the applicant guilty of offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of the Penal Code and upholding sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months and 1 year respectively imposed on the two counts upon the applicant on the conclusion of trial of Criminal Case No. 4/2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vasco. The facts which are material for deciding this revision application are as under:

(2.) The learned JMFC, Vasco explained particulars of the offence to the applicant and since he pleaded not guilty, put him on trial at which the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the applicant. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of the applicant that he was not driving vehicle at the relevant time the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions. In the Sessions Court, as recorded in para 9 of the judgment of Sessions Court, the learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant did not seriously dispute his conviction under Section 279 of the Penal Code, but disputed his conviction for offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Penal Code, on the ground that the victim had not been identified as one who died in the accident. This ground was taken on the contention that there was no evidence to connect the victim Shobha Haldankar to the accident. This contention did not find favour with the learned Sessions Judge, who maintained the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant is before this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant at more than adequate length and with his help, I have gone through the entire record of trial. The applicant has obviously not disputed at least at appellate stage that he was driving the Tata Sumo vehicle and the vehicle did meet with an accident on account of his rash and negligent driving. This has to be contrasted with his claim before the trial Court. In his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant had claimed that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and that he had merely gone to the spot when police picked him up and made him an accused. Even so, the learned Counsel sought to submit that had the vehicle met with an accident there would have been some marks of impact of salt bags and the body of the victim on the vehicle and since no such marks of impact on the salt bags or body of the victim were found, the learned Counsel wanted me to conclude that the applicant's vehicle did not meet with an accident at all. Having conceded before the appellate Court that the applicant was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 279 of the Penal Code, such a submission could not have been made. Apart from this, owner of the vehicle PW 2 also stated that vehicle was in charge of applicant at the time of accident.