Criminal Revision Application No.174 of 2014

26th November, 2014.

Petitioner Counsel: Shri. V.P. GOLEWAR
Respondent Counsel: Shri. S.R. PALNITKAR

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- The revision is admitted. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The petitioner is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 66 read with section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Maximum sentence of imprisonment of 15 days is given for offence under section 279 IPC. Statement was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that fine amount has been deposited.

3. The incident took place on 22-4-2002 at about 4.00 p.m. on Unapdeo, Tahsil Chopda road. The petitioner was driving a matador bearing No. MH-18/M-1387 which was a goods vehicle and he was carrying marriage party from Unapdeo to Amboda, Tahsil Chopda. The petitioner was driving the vehicle with excessive speed and in zig zag manner. Ultimately the vehicle turned turtle and the persons travelling as marriage party sustained injuries. Panchanama of the incident was drawn on 22-4-2002 itself by Adawad Police Station. ASI gave report and the crime came to be registered at CR No.15/2002 in the aforesaid police station for aforesaid offences. Police recorded statements of the witnesses, who were travelling in the matador including that of Kashinath, who had engaged the matador. Charge sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences. Before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, injured witnesses were examined and the spot panchanama was proved. Accused took defence that there was fault in the brakes and due to that he could not control the vehicle and the accident took place. He also took defence that some cattle had emerged on the road all of a sudden and due to that he applied brakes and then vehicle turned turtle.

4. Panchanama at Exhibit 13 is not disputed and the fact that the vehicle had turned turtle is also not disputed. The document shows that road had width of 10 feet and it was a tar road. A bridge was adjacent to the spot where the vehicle turned turtle. And the vehicle had fallen in a ditch situated by the side of the bridge. In view of this circumstance it was necessary for the accused to explain the things. It can be said that there was no escape from conviction given under section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the witnesses have deposed that they were travelling in the goods vehicle as marriage party.

5. Kashinath Parakhe (PW 3) has given evidence that due to sudden application of brakes the tempo turned turtle and persons travelling in the vehicle sustained injuries. In the cross-examination it is brought on the record that there were bridges. He has denied the suggestion that cattle emerged on the road all of a sudden. He has also denied that brakes of the vehicle had failed. Another witness Lilabai (PW 4) has given similar evidence. In her cross examination she has admitted that after seeing the cattle the accused applied brakes then the vehicle turned turtled. The evidence of Manjula (PW 5) shows that persons travelling in the vehicle were requesting the accused to drive the vehicle slowly as he was driving the vehicle with high speed. She has denied that another vehicle was coming from opposite direction. Dilip (PW 6) was also travelling in the vehicle. This witness was declared hostile and he was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Babji Garde (PW 7) also turned hostile.

6. The spot panchanama and the aforesaid direct evidence shows that even when it was 4 p.m. and there were many turns on the road and there were bridges and width was also around 10 feet, the accused was driving the vehicle with high speed. Even if it is presumed that there is probability that some cattle emerged on the road the case of the accused that he applied the brakes due to the cattle and due that the vehicle turned turtle cannot be accepted. In view of the evidence it needs to be observed that it was necessary for the accused to drive the vehicle with moderate speed so that he was able to control the vehicle. It can be said that only because he was driving the vehicle with high speed, the vehicle turned turtled near the bridge due to application of brakes.

7. There is report of the RTO showing that there was leakage in the brake line and so working of the brakes was not up to the expectation. This does not mean that brake had failed. It can be said that vehicle was not properly maintained and even when there was leakage in the brake line the accused was carrying marriage party in the vehicle which was a goods vehicle. In view of these circumstances this Court holds that it is not possible to interfere in the decision of conviction and sentence given under section 279 of the IPC and section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident took place in the year 2002 and the petitioner is aged about 45 years now and lenient view may be taken. He submitted that no grievous injury was sustained by any passenger. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that somewhat lenient view can be taken but the petitioner needs to be kept behind the bars for few days so that he realizes the seriousness of the things and he takes precaution in future.

9. In the result, the criminal revision application is partly allowed. The judgments and orders of conviction and sentence delivered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and the Sessions Court are modified to make the sentence of imprisonment as simple imprisonment for seven days. The other part of the judgment and order by which fine is imposed for these offences is maintained. Default sentence is also maintained if fine amount is not paid. The petitioner is to surrender to his bail bonds. Learned Judicial Magistrate is to issue conviction warrant if accused does not surrender. And for that copy of the judgment is to be immediately sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

Revision partly allowed.