STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against an order passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Chaibassa, dated 5th July 1950, acquitting the respondent, Mangal Singh, who was tried under Sec. 279, 338 and 304A, Penal Code.

(2.) The following facts led to the trial of the respondent. On 30th November 1949, the respondent was the driver of a bus whose No. was BRS 570 and which was plying on the Chai-cassa-Kathbhari Road. At some time between 4-30 and 5 in the afternoon of that date, the bus left Chaibassa. There were a number of passengers in the bus. After going for a distance of 3 or 4 miles, a signal was made by one Mathura Ho (P. W. 2), who was the Kolhan Inspector in the Revenue Department, to stop the bus. This Inspector said that at the time he was going home on a cycle after Court hours along the Kathbhari Road, he heard the sound of a bus coming. He wanted to catch the bus, as it was getting late. The witness said that the bus was going with great speed, and two of the wheels went inside a nala which, was by the side of the road. The bus appears to have got sut of this nala and come on the road, & then it capsized with the four wheels upwards. The result of this incident was that one passenger named Ram Prasad Mallah received such" severe injuries that he died at the spot; while another passenger, Onkar Sharma, had a bone of his spine broken, and several other passengers were injured. A witness, Dogar Bari (P. W. 1), happened to be passing along that road on a cycle, immediately after this incident. He deposed that he noticed a bus lying upside down with its wheels upwards and passengers inside it. He found the Kolhan Inspector, Mathura Ho, there, and this Inspector asked the witness to go to the Kolhan Police Station and inform the police there. Dogar Bari went to the police station, and reported the matter to the officer in charge. This officer, whose name is S. A. Ghaffor (P. W. 6), registered a case, and immediately proceeded to the spot. He found the bus in question lying capsized in the middle of the road near village Panpara. He stated that the body of the bus was smashed, and all the four wheels were pointing upwards. He found one man lying dead inside the bus, and he held inquest upon the dead body.

(3.) That the respondent was driving the bus in question that afternoon is admitted. It may be mentioned here that the bus was examined by J. P. Sinha (P. W. 11), who is a Motor Vehicles Inspector, & this witness stated that the hand-brake of the bus was ineffective, the foot-brake was defective, and the rod and drag link were loose. He deposed that these defects could not have been due to the accident. Clearly, these defects were present even before this accident. The respondent was undoubtedly driving the bus with these defects, and the evidence discloses that he was driving it with great speed. When the bus was signalled to stop for a passenger, the respondent tried to stop it, and attempted to apply the foot-brakes, but in vain. Five of the injured passengers were examined at the trial, and their evidence discloses that the respondent was driving the defective bus at a great speed. One of these witnesses, namely, Onker Mul Sharma (P. W. 15), stated that he and some of the other passengers had even asked the driver to drive the bus slowly; but evidently their request went unheeded: The evidence of this witness further is that the driver tried to stop the bus, when it was signalled to stop, and applied the brake; but he could not control the bus. The bus swerved to the right and then to the left, and then it turned upside down. The further evidence is that the road was all clear and straight, and there was no traffic upon it.