FAGU MOHARANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, in revision, against the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Boudh, maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 337, I. P. C. passed by a First Class Magistrate of Boudh, but slightly modifying the sentence.

(2.) The petitioner was the driver of a public bus No. O. R. C. 2114 plying between Daspalla and Boudh. At about 9-45 A.M. on 9-5-1955, there was a collision between the petitioner's bus on the one hand and a private car No. O.R.R. 2 belonging to Sri G. C. Roy, Deputy Superintendent of Railway Police, Cuttack, on the other at the 85th Milestone from Boudh on the Daspalla road. The petitioner's bus was proceeding towards Daspalla whereas Mr. Roy's car was proceeding from Daspalla towards Boudh. In consequence of the collision the car was more badly damaged than the bus and some of the inmates of the car, including Mr. Roy, sustained severe injuries.

(3.) The case was started on the basis of a written report sent by Mr. Roy to the A. S. I. in charge of Arni Chat (vide Ext. 8). Mr. Roy alleged that as the road was zig-zag at the spot he slowed down the speed of his car to 15 miles an hour and sounded the electrical horn but the bus O.R.C. 2114 came from the opposite direction at great speed and though he brought the car to standstill by applying the brakes the bus did not stop and collided with the car. He further stated that he was proceeding on the extreme left of the road and there was ample space on his right for the bus to pass through. Hence, he charged the petitioner with rash and negligent driving. During trial also he put forward a similar case and sought support for the same from the evidence of two occupants of the car, namely Dasarath Naik (P.W. 2) and Anantha Naik (P.W. 3). But the evidence of these two witnesses is rendered weak because earlier during police investigation they stated they could not hear the sound of the horn of the car, that the driver of the bus was sounding his horn frequently and driving his vehicle at normal speed, and that though the bus was stopped it was the car which collided with the bus. Hence their belated evidence in court cannot have much value as corroborating that of Mr. Roy; and as Mr. Roy is a highly interested party, his evidence cannot be fully accepted - without adequate corroboration.