STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GOUTAM,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused of offences under Sections 279, 304 -A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the alleged rash and negligent driving of a State Transport vehicle by the accused at about 4.30 p.m. on the 22nd of June 1972. The prosecution case is, that the said bus was proceeding from west to east, and in the course of its journey, it had to cross a narrow bridge which, according to the evidence in this case, was only 20' -10" in width. What happened was that as soon as the bus entered the bridge, the driver some how lost control, and the bus fell over the bridge on the right side into the river bed. The unfortunate result of this occurrence was, that three persons died and a large number of passengers in that bus were injured, some of them seriously. The accused was, in due course, charged with offences under Sections 279, 304 -A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted by Mr. A.S. Bhate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaijapur, by his judgment dated 19th May 1973. It is from that order of acquittal that the State has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) I have been taken almost entirely through the evidence in this case which consists of a large number of witnesses, but it is unnecessary for me to discuss that evidence in detail beyond stating that witnesses Sonaji GavanaJi, Tulshidas Digambarrao, Narayan Barkar and Parbat Sheepat have deposed to the bus being driven by the accused at the material time at considerable speed. From none of these witnesses has their notion of speed been, however, elicited. As laid down by the Supreme Court in an unreported judgment which I have followed in my decision in the case of Tukaram Sitaram v. State, 72 Bom LR 492 = (1971 Cri LJ 767), the use of an expression like "high speed" is not enough to prove rashness or negligence, unless evidence is further elicited from the witness who used that expression as to what his notion of speed was. As against the evidence of these witnesses on the point of speed, there is the evidence of the bus conductor Mohamed Omer that the speed of the bus at the time visions in the new Criminal Procedure Code is to expedite investigation, inquiry and trial of the criminal cases and indefinite detention of the accused, even in murder cases, would be against those provisions. Nothing that is stated hereinabove shall prejudice the accused in their defence at the inquiry or trial in any manner whatsoever. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, the rule is made absolute. The accused to surrender to their bail forthwith. Rule made absolute.