FRANCIS XAVIER RODRIGUES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a driver. When he was driving a truck bearing number GDT 8955 on 11-7-1980 at about 19. 10 hours, it involved in an accident. The ill fated truck belonged to M/s. V. M. Salgaonkar, an industrial Company. Two labourers who were travelling in the body of the truck were killed and three other labourers were injured, two of them seriously. According to prosecution, the petitioner was negligently driving the said truck on the aforesaid day when the truck reached near Post Office at Dabolim, dashed against a telephone pole, situated on the right hand side of the road. Thereafter, it went ahead and dashed against a mango tree which broke down and then again hit a coconut tree which fell on the truck. Only thereafter that the truck came to halt after travelling for a distance of 128. 8 metres. The prosecution has charged the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A, I. P. C.

(2.) LEARNED Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-de-Gama by judgment dated 21-4-1990, found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo another two months S. I. An appeal has been filed before the Sessions Court, South Goa at Margao, which also came to be dismissed in Criminal Appeal No. 7/90 by the Appellate Courts judgment dated 30-7-1996. The 1earned Addl. Sessions Judge, Margao confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate and directed the petitioner to surrender before the Magistrate on 20-8-1996 at 10. 30 a. m. to undergo the sentence of imprisonment. It is in this context that the petitioner/ accused approached this Court challenging the judgments of the Courts below by way of present revision application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri Diniz while arguing for admission of this Revision Application has very vehemently contended that the accused has not been identified in this case, as he was not driving the said truck at the time of accident. In fact, this was the defence of the accused which he had taken before the Courts below also. Both the Courts below have negatived this defence taken by the petitioner/ accused. The learned Magistrate has gone into this question, in detail, relying on the evidence of P. W. 2, P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 and found that the case of the defence was disproved. Before the Sessions Judge also the said contention was taken, but it was rightly rejected. Learned counsel drew my attention to the statements of witnesses examined in this case and he pointed out that those witnesses did not say that it is the accused who was driving the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the statement of P. W. 5, Shivaji Bimappa, who was travelling in the body of the truck, says thus :