Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 10 (BOM)

State of Goa v. Bhaskar Ganega

2014-01-06

T.V.NALAWADE

body2014
Judgment : This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order of Criminal Case No.43/S/2010, which was pending in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Canacona, Goa. The respondent is acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are as follows. The crime was registered in Canacona Police Station by one Head Constable. The accident took place at Karmalghat Canacona situated on Margao-Karwar road on 2/4/2007 at 12.00 noon. Truck bearing no. KA-19-A-7666 was proceeding towards Karwar side and one mini bus was proceeding towards Margao side. The accident took place at a sharp turn which is at an angle of almost 90 degrees. There was head on collusion. 3. The accused took defence of total denial. The prosecution examined the driver and conductor of the bus. One panch witness also came to be examined for proving the spot panchanama. The Investigating Officer is also examined. 4. The evidence shows that there were about 20 persons in the mini-bus. Statement of not a single passenger was recorded. The panch witness has admitted that the driver of the mini-bus hails from his village. Thus, only three interested witnesses are examined by the prosecution. 5. The hand sketch map of the spot of accident is drawn in which the position of the two vehicles and the road is shown. In the panchanama, the width of the road is shown as 6 metres, but in the hand sketch map, the road which was available on the right hand side was admeausring 5 metres and the road which was available on the left hand side was admeasuring half metre. Thus, there is inconsistency in the description of the road given in the sketch and the spot panchanama. The driver gave evidence that he saw the truck for the first time when it was at a distance of about 7-8 metres and on the other hand the conductor has given evidence that he saw the truck for the first time when it was at a distance of about 12-15 metres. In any case, it can be said that due to the sharp turn both drivers could not see the other vehicle. In the spot panchanama and the hand sketch, there is no mention of tyre marks, marks of application of brakes. In any case, it can be said that due to the sharp turn both drivers could not see the other vehicle. In the spot panchanama and the hand sketch, there is no mention of tyre marks, marks of application of brakes. The truck driver has deposed that after seeing the bus, the bus was spotted and the accident took place when the bus was stationery. 6. The oral evidence cannot be believed in view of the circumstances, which are not there in the spot panchanama. In ordinary course, there would have been tyre marks to show that the bus driver had applied brakes. There is no mention in the spot panchanama to the effect that the road was ascending towards Margao side where the mini bus was proceeding. 7. The bus driver gave evidence that the truck driver was driving the truck at a speed of 70-80 k.m.p.h and it came towards the side of the bus at the time of the impact. Spot panchanama does not show that the bus was dragged towards back side due to the impact. There is no check to the oral evidence of the driver and the conductor. Further the versions of all the three witnesses are interested versions. 8. The Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has considered the aforesaid circumstances and benefit of doubt is given to the accused. The view taken is a possible view and therefore no interference is warranted. The appeal stands dismissed. The bail bonds stand canceled. Appeal dismissed.