MAHAMMED SAFFIQUE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONCURRENT findings of fact have been recorded by the trial and appellate courts against the petitioner to the effect that by his rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. ORP 2045 on March 17; 1972, it dashed against Fakira Swain coming on the road between Pipili and Sakhigopal riding on his bicycle by observing the rules of the road keeping left for which Fakir Swain succumbed to the injuries and the bus then fell into a ditch causing injuries to some of its inmates. The petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 279, 337 and 304 -A of the I. P. C. and his conviction in respect of the three offences recorded by the trial court has been maintained by the learned appellate Judge who has sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for each of these three offences concurrently. To establish its case, the prosecution had examined eleven witnesses at the trial. The case of the petitioner was that he had been driving the bus properly and carefully. In other words, his case seemed to be that the accident had occurred owing to circumstances beyond his control.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only evidence against the petitioner was that he had been driving the vehicle in speed and speedy driving, by itself, would not amount to rash and/or negligent driving. He has also submitted that adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the prosecution for non -production of the inspection report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector which could have shown that the accident was due to some mechanical failure and not due to the rash and/or negligent act on the part of the petitioner. The learned Additional Standing Counsel has fairly submitted before me that in a case of this nature, the prosecution ought to have done well in placing on record and proving the inspection report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, but he has contended that the evidence would clearly show that the petitioner had been driving the bus at reckless speed without blowing horn and he could be convicted as he had been.

(3.) THE Motor Vehicle Inspector had been examined as P. W. 10 and as his evidence would show, he had prepared an inspection report which was not in the record of the case. As submitted before me on behalf of the petitioner, the inspection report could show that the accident had occurred owing to some sudden mechanical failure and not because of the rash and/or negligent driving on the part of the petitioner in which case, he could not be held responsible, by his act, for causing the death of one person and injuries to others. P. W. 10 had not deposed as to what had been found by him on the spot evidently because without referring to his inspection report, he could not have testified about it. The prosecution took steps through the court to get the inspection report, but (it ?) ought to have taken pains to cause production of the inspection report and if it was lost, to produce the copy thereof which might have been prepared in the same process with the original and get it admitted in evidence