APARTI PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having been convicted under section 304- A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) and sentenced to R.I. for six months also confirmed in appeal, has preferred this revision.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as laid by the prosecution, are that the petitioner was a driver of a private passenger bus bearing Registration No. ORK 185 and on the day of occurrence i.e. 27-1-80 at 7 a.m. while the deceased lady Mani Sindhull Santa alias Sukuti was waiting at the bus-stand of Tentulikhunti is the district of Koraput along with her husband and an infant son, was run over by the bus due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner resulting in her instant death and injuries caused to the son. The prosecution, to bring home the charge, examined thirteen witnesses of which P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are stated to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, whereas P.W. 3 is the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination on the deceased and P. W. 8 is the doctor who examined the injuries of the son. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Code imposing respectively the sentence of R.I. for one month on each of the first two counts and six months on the last count with a direction that the sentences are to run concurrently. In appeal, thelearned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under sections 279 and 337 of the Code but maintained the conviction under section 304-A of the code.

(3.) As appears from the judgment of the learned Magistrate, which has been also reiterated by the appellate Court, the conviction of the petitioner is based upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12. Looking at the evidence how ever, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 can hardly be said to be eye-witnesses since they have not deposed regarding the actual occurrence. P.W. 5 is the informant in the case and is the husband of the deceased. P.W. 6 is a co-passenger as also P.W.7. P.W. 11 is a tea-stall keeper near the bus-stand and P.W. 12 is the conductor of the bus. The learned Magistrate in finding the petitioner guilty came to the conclusion on the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 that the incident occurred while the petitioner was reversing the bus and he had not taken the precaution of asking the cleaner to be at the back of the bus to give signal an warning and that he was not blowing horn. Such conduct of the petitioner was found to be inherently dangerous and sufficiently rash and negligent resulting in the death of the victim lady and injuring the small boy for which the conviction under section 304-A was warranted.