STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. AUSTIN ANTHONY D SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th July, 1981 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasai, in Criminal Case No. 1299 of 1978 acquitting the respondent-accused driver of on S.T. bus-of the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. and section 116 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939.

(2.) The facts leading to the prosecution of the respondent-accused lie in a very narrow compass. The accused on 18th July, 1978 was driving State Transport Bus No. MHF 481 plying between Arnala and Virar. He left Arnala at about 2 p.m. At a short distance from Arnala Bus Station there is a building where the Bank of Maharashtra is housed and near that building there is a sharp curve. The bus driving from Arnala to Virar has to travel from west to east and hear the Maharashtra Bank building it has to take a sharp turn towards north. While the bus driven by the accused was negotiating the curve near the Maharashtra Bank building, the left middle portion of the body of the bus came in contact with the wall of the Maharashtra Bank building and at that time deceased Sakina Vahad Bugadwala, aged about 20 years, who was walking by the side of the Maharashtra Bank building, was crushed between the body of the bus and the Maharashtra Bank building, and she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her in the impact of the bus. Near the Maharashtra Bank building there is a cutcha road of the, width of about three and half feet and beyond that there is a tar road of the width of 13 feet and beyond the tar road there is some cutcha road. The bus while negotiating the curve had left the tar road and went on the cutcha road and, while so negotiating the curve, the middle and the rear left portions of the bus brushed the wall of the Maharashtra Bank building and in the process the pedestrian Sakina was crushed and succumbed to the injuries. On those facts, the prosecution alleged that the accused was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and thereby caused the death of Sakina. He was, therefore, prosecuted for the offences mentioned above.

(3.) The defence of the respondent-accused as disclosed in his examination under section 313 Cri.P.C., is that a vehicle was coming from the opposite side and, therefore, he stopped the vehicle, and he had to shunt the vehicle to make room for the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. At that time there was commotion at the back side and, therefore, he got down and witnessed that a woman was pressed between the wall of the Maharashtra Bank building and the bus. He denied that he was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. He led no evidence in defence.