KANTILAL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is admitted. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides for final disposal. The petitioner is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 66 read with section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Maximum sentence of imprisonment of 15 days is given for offence under section 279 IPC. Statement was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that fine amount has been deposited.

(2.) The incident took place on 22-4-2002 at about 4.00 p.m. on Unapdeo, Tahsil Chopda road. The petitioner was driving a matador bearing No. MH-18/M-1387 which was a goods vehicle and he was carrying marriage party from Unapdeo to Amboda, Tahsil Chopda. The petitioner was driving the vehicle with excessive speed and in zig zag manner. Ultimately the vehicle turned turtle and the persons travelling as marriage party sustained injuries. Panchanama of the incident was drawn on 22-4-2002 itself by Adawad Police Station. ASI gave report and the crime came to be registered at CR No. 15/2002 in the aforesaid police station for aforesaid offences. Police recorded statements of the witnesses, who were travelling in the matador including that of Kashinath, who had engaged the matador. Charge sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences. Before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, injured witnesses were examined and the spot panchanama was proved. Accused took defence that there was fault in the brakes and due to that he could not control the vehicle and the accident took place. He also took defence that some cattle had emerged on the road all of a sudden and due to that he applied brakes and then vehicle turned turtle.

(3.) Panchanama at Exhibit 13 is not disputed and the fact that the vehicle had turned turtle is also not disputed. The document shows that road had width of 10 feet and it was a tar road. A bridge was adjacent to the spot where the vehicle turned turtle. And the vehicle had fallen in a ditch situated by the side of the bridge. In view of this circumstance it was necessary for the accused to explain the things. It can be said that there was no escape from conviction given under section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the witnesses have deposed that they were travelling in the goods vehicle as marriage party.