SURENDRA SAVLO GADDI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal revision is filed by the petitioner/ accused against the order of conviction which was awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bicholim for the offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently the said judgment was confirmed by the Appellate Court of Sessions Judge.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner/accused that on 25/4/2010 at around 16.35 hours at Ghodug Amona, Sanquleim-Goa, the petitioner /accused was driving a mini bus bearing no.GA-05-T-1455 without holding transport licence and was proceeding from Marcel to Sanquelim. On the road, he lost control over the steering wheel, bus turtled and three passengers in the bus were injured. Police thereafter registered offence against him and a criminal case no.81/S/2010/A was lodged before the JMFC, Bicholim. He pleaded not guilty and thereafter trial progressed. Prosecution examined six witnesses including the three injured persons. The learned JMFC after considering the evidence tendered by the prosecution and the defence adopted by the accused held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default simple imprisonment and one month for the offence under section 279 of I.P.C. For the offence under section 337 of I.P.C., he is sentenced to undergo S.I of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo S.I. for 15 days and the petitioner was also convicted for the offence under section 338 of I.P.C., he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for two months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo S.I. of three months. All the sentences to run concurrently. The said order was taken before the Appellate Court. However, the Appellate Court i.e the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mapusa who by his judgment dated 28/12/2011 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the learned JMFC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, this criminal revision application is preferred by the petitioner/accused.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner /accused and the learned Public Prosecutor both have taken me to the evidence of all the witnesses and the judgment passed by both the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that none of the witnesses of the prosecution has stated in the evidence that the petitioner/accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which is required under section 279 or 338 of the I.P.C. He argued that if the vehicle is driven in high speed itself, it cannot constitute an offence. In support of his submissions, he relied on and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "State of Karnataka Vs. Satish", 1998 SCC(Cri) 1508 and also on another judgment of the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of "Abdul Subhan V. State", 2007 CrLJ 1089. He argued that the subordinate Courts ought to have appreciated the defence adopted by the accused that the accident has occurred due to the mechanical defect in the vehicle. The petitioner/accused was driving the vehicle diligently and not in rash or negligent manner. However, due to mechanical failure he lost control over the wheel and accident took place. The Subordinate Courts have erred in rejecting this defence. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the vehicle at the relevant time was mechanically sound. Therefore, the judgments given by the Courts below are to be set aside.