(1.) HEARD rival arguments on this criminal appeal preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.45/2010. The said impugned judgment and order of acquittal was passed on 18/06/2010. Said appeal was preferred by the present respondent/original accused challenging the judgment and order of JMFC, Ponda dated 12/03/2010 in criminal case no.22/S/2008/B.
(2.) NOW , coming back to the substantive evidence of PW2 and PW6, it appears that the evidence of PW2 was accepted by the trial Court and that of PW6, conductor was rejected. PW6 is the conductor of the bus which was driven by the present respondent. His evidence was rejected on the ground that he is an interested witness. Evidence of PW2 shows that he had seen the incident. However, there are certain discrepancies brought on record during his cross -examination inasmuch as at what point of time he had seen the impact. It is also brought on record that after the impact he had seen the vehicles. However, he has also mentioned that while he was sitting in the balcony of his flat while taking tea he noticed the accident and, as such, accordingly gave his statement before the police and also deposed before the Court. According to him the bus driver came in fast speed and gave dash to the jeep and thereby caused the accident and caused consequent death of the person who was standing by the side of the road. So far as substantive evidence of PW6 conductor is concerned he had mentioned that respondent/driver tried to evade the accident by taking the vehicle to his right side.
(3.) IN the opinion of this Court, the damage to both the vehicles is of much significance inasmuch as the jeep is damaged in the middle of the two doors on the left side, whereas the mini bus has only damage towards the front left side. This indicates that the bus was in a process of avoiding the impact when the Scorpio Jeep was on the right, in fact, perpendicular to the road running from Margao to Ponda.