Criminal Revision Petition No. 1102 of 2002 · Kerala High Court · 2012

Crl.R.P. No.1102 of 2002-: 2 :-and thereafter the bus driven by the petitioner capsizedcausing serious injuries to 32 persons. Out of them, threepersons succumbed to the fatal injuries on 4.5.1992,5.5.1992 and 13.5.1992 respectively. After conductinginvestigation charge sheet was laid against the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty. 3.56 witnesses were examined and Exts.P1 to P25were marked on the side of the prosecution. No evidencewas adduced on the side of the defence. The learnedMagistrate found that the bus was driven by the accused ina rash and negligent manner and so, it hit the fence andthereafter hit the coconut tree and got capsized. Thecontention that there was mechanical defect was turneddown by the learned Magistrate. The appellate court alsoconcurred with the conviction and sentence passed by thetrial court and thus the appeal was dismissed.4.Learned counsel for the revision petitionersubmits that the courts below went wrong in holding that Crl.R.P. No.1102 of 2002-: 3 :-the vehicle had no mechanical defect. PW55, the JointR.T.O., who examined the bus involved in the accident hadnoted “steering disconnected”. But, according to PW55, itoccurred due to the accident. PW55 could not say fromwhich part of the vehicle it was got disconnected. It ispointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that itwas admitted by PW55 that it is possible that the 3rd ArmBolt would brake when the vehicle was in running conditionand if it so occurred, the steering will get disconnected andif steering is disconnected, the driver cannot control thevehicle. If that be so, according to the learned counsel forthe petitioner, the accident occurred since the 3rd Arm Boltwas broken and it caused disconnection of the steering andas a result of the same, the bus could not be controlled.Hence, according to the petitioner, rashness or negligenceattributed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. It isfurther submitted by the learned counsel that PW55 hasadmitted that he could not deny the suggestion that the Crl.R.P. No.1102 of 2002-: 4 :-accident could have occurred because of the factorsmentioned above since he (PW55) did not examine the 3rdArm Bolt.5.Learned Public Prosecutor submits that theargument advanced by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is unsustainable in view of the fact that theevidence is clear on the point that the front portion of thevehicle was completely damaged and so, it was not possibleto find whether the 3rd Arm Bolt was broken. It is alsopointed out that PW55 had in fact clarified the position thatit was not possible to examine the 3rd Arm Bolt becausefront portion of the vehicle including the 3rd Arm Bolt wascompletely damaged. It was further elucidated by PW55that if a vehicle proceeds in the normal speed, even if the3rd Arm Bolt was got damaged or severed, the driver canimmediately notice the same and control the vehicle. It wasfurther clarified by PW55 that he could not examine 3rd ArmBolt since the front portion of the vehicle was heavily Crl.R.P. No.1102 of 2002-: 5 :-damaged and that the body portion of the 3rd Arm Bolt wasalso dented due to the impact of the hit. It was also noticedthat the brake system was in order. In the light of theclarification made by PW55 as aforesaid, the argumentfounded on the premise that the steering was gotdisconnected and the 3rd Arm Bolt which connects thesteering was got severed and so, the accident wasunavoidable is found to be bereft of any merit.6.The fact that the bus went off the road,demolished the fence and then hit the coconut tree and thusit capsized causing injury to about 32 persons and thefurther fact that three of them who sustained seriousinjuries succumbed to the same are not now in dispute.There is also evidence in abundance to hold that it was theaccused who drove the bus at the relevant time.7.Learned Public Prosecutor would point out thatthe courts below have also noticed the fact that the vehiclewas enroute taken to the workshops at two places and Crl.R.P. No.1102 of 2002-: 6 :-repair work was done before it reached the place ofaccident and even thereafter so many persons were allowedto board the bus. In fact, according to the prosecution, thebus was overloaded. So many injured persons who wereexamined on the side of the prosecution stated before courtthat the bus driven by the petitioner demolished the barbedfence and thereafter it hit a coconut tree causing it touproot and then the bus was capsized. It is in evidence thatthe bus was descending at down gradient and was drivingat high speed. At the relevant time, the bus was negotiatinga curve. The fact that the bus went off the road is also notdisputed. The coconut tree which hit the bus was about 20-25 feet away from the road. The fact remains that evenbefore the bus reached the place of incident it was taken tothe workshop at two places. That would indicate that theaccused was aware of the fact that the bus was having somedefect which should have alerted or compelled the driver ofthe bus to be more cautious and diligent. But the evidence Crl.R.P. No.1102 of 2002-: 7 :-would show that even after the bus was taken to the twoworkshops as stated above, the bus was driven at a highspeed and in a negligent manner endangering human life.The nature of the evidence is such that the bus should nothave been driven at high speed especially when the bus wasnegotiating a curve. The further fact that the bus had somemechanical defect even earlier should have alerted aprudent driver to be more careful and diligent. That muchcare and diligence was not taken by the petitioner – thedriver of the bus. The contention that there was mechanicaldefect was rightly turned down by the two courts below.The petitioner cannot successfully contend that the buswent off the road because the 3rd Arm Bolt was damaged orsevered from the steering. That plea was rightly repelledby the courts below. As such, the conviction is only to beconfirmed.8.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthe sentence may be reduced. It is a case where 32 persons Crl.R.P. No.1102 of 2002-: 8 :-sustained injuries. The injuries sustained by some of themwere very serious. Three out of them succumbed to theinjuries. Therefore it is not a case where the petitionerdeserves any sympathy, the learned Public Prosecutorsubmits. In the decision in State of Punjab v. BalwinderSingh [(2012) 2 SCC 182], it was held by the Apex Court :“For lessening the high rate of motoraccidents due to careless and callous drivingof vehicles, the courts are expected toconsider all the relevant facts andcircumstances bearing on the question ofsentence and proceed to impose a sentencecommensurate with the gravity of the offenceif the prosecution is able to establish the guiltbeyond reasonable doubt.”(See also the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Harayana[(2000) 5 SCC 82]). Considering all the aspects, this Crl.R.P. isdisposed of as stated below :-The verdict of conviction is confirmed. Thesubstantive sentence awarded to the petitioner/accused will Crl.R.P. No.1102 of 2002-: 9 :-stand reduced to R.I. for one year and he is also sentencedto pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as fine forthe offence under Sec.304A IPC. The sentence awarded forother offences will stand confirmed. The substantivesentences will run concurrently. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.Jvt