TIRAMAREDDI SATYANARAYAN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was convicted under Section 304 -A, 337, 338 and 279, Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Rayagada and sentenced to rigorous imprisonments for six months, two months, six months and two months respectively under each of the aforesaid four counts, the sentences to run consecutively.

(2.) THE Petitioner is a driver and for 7 to 8 years before the occurrence which took place on 8.4.1965 was driving passenger buses on the Jeypore -Rayagada section. On 8.4.1965, he was driving a passenger bus from Rayagada to Jeypore. There were 47 passengers in the bus by the time it reached a place known as Gumma - Shortly after the bus left Gumma it reached the Ghat section of the road, the upgradient there being l 'x 18'. As the bus reached the top of the gradient, the engine failed to pull up. the vehicle. The Petitioner tried to change to load gear but the bus started to roll down backwards. The Petitioner advised the cleaner of the bus to place a stone under the wheel and it was done. Simultaneously the driver also applied brakes but despite all these, the bus rolled down backwards for about 30 yards and fell down into a ditch on its left side. When the bus rolled down backwards one of the passengers jumped down from the vehicle and fell down under it and was crushed to death. Several other passengers also received injuries. As the injured persons were being transported to Rajyagada in another vehicle, one of them died on the way. That very evening p.w. 7 the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Koraput inspected the vehicle at the place of accident. He found that engine oil was thrown outside and underneath the vehicle, and that the hand brake was not working and was ineffective. The booster cylinder pipe was found detached from the cylinder. He was of opinion that at the time of accident, the driver might have been driving the vehicle in third gear but when the engine could not pull the vehicle in that gear, he attempted to change info higher gear but he could not succeed and in the meantime the engine stopped and the vehicle started rolling backwards. Again when the driver tried to engage the gear, due to backward motion of the vehicle the engine started in reverse direction causing the engine oil to be thrown out of the engine and smoke coming out of the engine. The foot brake which appeared to be in good condition was not effective due to the starting of the engine in reverse direction. He was ultimately of opinion that if the driver had changed into higher gear a little earlier, the vehicle might not have met with such a serious accident. After necessary investigation, the Petitioner was put on trial on the charges mentioned above.

(3.) THE Courts below held that the Petitioner was trying to negotiate the steep ?climb in the third gear and when the engine could not pull he tried to switch over to the load gear and failed. They thought that the bus being a heavy vehicle loaded with SO persons, it was the bounden duty of the driver to exercise ordinary prudence and caution and put the vehicle in the load gear so that it could pull up the vehicle. His failure to do so was considered to be a rash and negligent act which resulted in the unfortunate death of two persons and injuries to many others. In this view of the case, they convicted the Petitioner.