M BHOOPAL REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the Judgment of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 9-7-1991 in Crl. A. No. 25/91 confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C. and the sentence of R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 imposed by the trial Court in C.C. No. 342/89 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased worked in a construction complex at Adikmet and on 27-4-1989 after completing their work they were returning back to their house on their individual cycles. P.W. 1 was in the front, P.W. 2 in the middle and the deceased was behind P.W. 2. When they were passing through Ramnagar Gundu, one R.T.C. bus AEZ 5482, driven by the accused came from behind with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and the left bumper of the bus hit the cycle of the deceased. Due to the impact the deceased fell down from the cycle and the left front and rear wheels of the bus ran over the deceased as a result of which the died on the spot.

(3.) P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined in the lower Court and Exs. P-1 to P-5 were marked. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They are examined to speak about the incident P.W. 1 deposed that on 27-4-1989 at about 6.00 p.m. he was coming on cycle from Ramnagar along with the deceased Vittal and P.W. 2 on separate cycles and when they reached Ramnagar Gundu, the R.T.C. bus driven by the accused came from their behind and dashed the deceased, when the bumper hit the cycle of the deceased and due to the hit by the bumper of the bus the deceased fell down and the back wheel of the bus ran over his head and stomach and the deceased died on the spot. He further deposed that the accused was driving the bus and that the bus came in a high speed and dashed the cycle, and that the police came to the scene of offence and his statement Ex. P-1 was recorded by the police. P.W. 2, the other eye-witness, corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 in all material particulars. Though P.Ws. 1 and 2 were subjected to cross-examination, nothing is elicited from them. P.W. 2 during his cross-examination has stated that the road at the scene of offence is narrow and that there were sand and stone heaps on the road margin and that after hearing the sound when he turned back he found the deceased lying on the road and the wheels running over him. He has also deposed in his re-examination that the bus came from behind with speed. It is true that both P.Ws. 1 and 2 have admitted that when on hearing a cry of the deceased they turned back. But it may be noted that P.W. 2, who is immediately ahead of the deceased, deposed that on hearing the cry of the deceased, he turned back and found that the wheels of the vehicle were running over the deceased. Thus P.W. 2 saw the wheels of the bus actually running over the deceased. P.W. 1 has also clearly deposed that the bus came with high speed and gave a dash to the cycle. Admittedly when there are sand and stone heaps on the road margin, the accused should have controlled the speed of the bus particularly when the road at that point is stated to be narrow. What is negligent act depend upon the particular incident that took place. At time, 100 MPH may not be high speed but at certain times going at a speed of 5 miles may be high speed. In this case the nature of the road at that particular point does not permit the accused to go at a high speed. Since the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were proceeding on cycles in front of the bus, the accused must have been seeing them from a long distance. It is the duty of the accused-driver to control the speed of the bus particularly when there are sand and stone heaps on the road margin and the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 going in front of the bust. Considering the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, both the Courts concurrently found that the accused drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and with high speed and dashed the deceased which resulted in his instantaneous death. I see no grounds to interfere with the said finding which is based on sound reasoning.