P APPAYYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was charged with offences punishable under section 429 of the Indian Penal Code and section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and convicted and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment under each count the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) On the evening of 2nd July, 1955, the prisoner was driving a lorry on the road from Piduguralla to Sattenapalli. The first witness for the prosecution as well as the first witness for the defence were seated in the lorry beside the petitioner. At about 7-30 P.M. the lorry reached the outskirts of the village of Dhulipala when it met a drove of cattle moving in the opposite direction. The lorry ran into the animals and the result was that four he-buffaloes died on the spot while two others were seriously injured. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and explained that the night was cloudy, that there was a drizzle, that as the front lights of the lorry were not in good order, the visibility was poor and that when he saw the buffaloes moving forward, he applied his brakes though in vain because by that time the animals were too near the lorry to enable it to stop without causing damage. There were 'three eye-witnesses to the incident who were examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 1 who was in the lorry at the time and P.W's. 2 and 3, the drovers in charge of the cattle. The other passenger in the lorry was examined as D.W. 1. Then there was the evidence of P.W. 4, the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Guntur, as to the cause of the death of the buffaloes that died and the cause of the injuries to the two other animals that were injured. P.W. 5 who is the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Guntur, gave evidence that he inspected the lorry soon after the incident and noticed several defects in the lorry, which, in his opinion, could have been caused by violent impact with the animals. One of the defects noticed by him was that head-light on the right side of the lorry was completely out of order. He added that if only one head-light was working, the driver cannot see properly the road ahead. On this evidence, the learned trial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of both the offences with which he was charged and passed the sentences referred to above. The accused took the matter in appeal to the Sessions Court and it was disposed of by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, who confirmed both the convictions and the sentences. The present criminal revision case impugns the correctness of the conclusions reached by the lower Courts.

(3.) Mr. T. V. Sarma, for the petitioner, raised four principal contentions before me. He contended in. the first place that there could be no conviction under section 429 of the Indian Penal Code without a finding as to either the intention or knowledge of the character mentioned in section 425 of that Code. In the circumstances of the case, he urges that there could be intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person. That much, I think, may be conceded, and the lower Courts have not recorded such a finding. But the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge has stated that the petitioner must certainly be imputed the knowledge that when he was driving a heavy vehicle like a lorry with hopelessly poor lights, he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person. The trial Magistrate also recorded a similar finding. I therefore think, that there is no substance in this point. It has been next contended for the petitioner that the conviction under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act is, at any rate, unsustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to fortify his argument by reference to a decision of the Madras High Court reported in Ganesan v. King., (1949) 2 M.L.J. 255 (1949) M.W.N. 516.