Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 424 (BOM)

State of Goa v. Govind Shet Narvekar

2014-02-17

MRIDULA R.BHATKAR

body2014
Judgment : The appeal preferred by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 27/4/2012 passed by the learned IInd Addl. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao, thereby acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The accident has taken place on 10/10/2011 at above 18.00 hours on the Goa-Bombay National Highway no.17, near Sonfator Loutulim near Toll Naka. Tata Sumo Victa bearing no.GA-05/T-0494 was proceeding from Margao to Ponda and the other vehicle which involved in the accident, that is, the Fiat Punto car bearing no.GA-05-B-5483 was coming from opposite direction i.e. Ponda to Margao. The driver and the owner of the Tata Sumo, who were traveling in the Tata Sumo at the relevant time sustained injuries and were admitted to the hospital. Offence was registered against the driver of the Fiat car at Maina Curtorim, Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C.. First Information Report (F.I.R) was given by the Head Constable Mr. R. M. Talekar which was registered as Crime No.109/2011 of the Maina Curtorim Police Station. The respondent/accused thereafter was arrested and charge sheet was filed against him. He pleaded not guilty and thereafter he was tried before the learned Magistrate and the trial concluded in acquittal. Hence, the appeal. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accident took place when driver of the Fiat case i.e. respondent in rash and negligent manner overtook one truck proceeding from Ponda to Margao and dashed the Tata Sumo. The right side of the Tata Sumo was damaged, the driver and the owner of Tata Sumo also were injured. The occupant, Mr. Shrikat Paranjape had sustained fracture and he is examined by the prosecution as PW.2. He drew my attention to the spot panchanama and the sketch which is marked as Exhibit 9-C collectively. Learned Public Prosecutor by drawing my attention to the sketch submitted that both the vehicles are shown in the sketch towards the right side of the road and thus, for this accident, it can be said that the driver of the Fiat car was responsible, as the vehicle has come totally on the right side. 3. He submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in not believing the evidence of the prosecution and thereby acquitted the accused. 4. 3. He submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in not believing the evidence of the prosecution and thereby acquitted the accused. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor read over the evidence of the witnesses in support of his submissions. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent while opposing the appeal argued that the respondent driver of Fiat was not driving rashly and negligently at the relevant time and the prosecution could not prove that the respondent was responsible for the commission of the accident. Thus, the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is to be maintained. 6. On perusal of the evidence and the panchanama and also the sketch at Exhibit -C (Colly), the prosecution could not point out the spot of the impact of the two vehicles. In order to ascertain and fix the responsibility of the accident, a basic requirement is to tender evidence regarding the spot of the impact. The evidence of the witnesses discloses that the vehicles were coming from opposite directions and the vehicles collided on the highway. There is also evidence that at the relevant time one truck was proceeding from Ponda to Margao and the driver of the Fiat car overtook the truck with speed and thereafter dashed the Tata Sumo. Undoubtedly, a vehicle has to be in speed when it overtakes the other. However, overtaking in speed itself cannot constitute an offence. It is necessary for the prosecution to establish the offence and responsibility of the driver of the vehicle to bring on record that the driver of the Fiat drove his vehicle on the wrong side of the road. Thus, there should be evidence that the fiat was driven in a rash and manner that it left half portion of the road which is expected to be used by the vehicle coming from Ponda to Margao and encroached on the right side portion of the road which is expected to be used exclusively from the vehicles going from Margao to Ponda. The sketch discloses the spot where the vehicles were found after the impact. The spot shown is totally on the right side of the driver of the fiat car and accordingly the spot panchanama was drawn. Such sketch panchanama are not of any use for the prosecution to establish their case on the point that the respondent drove his vehicle on the wrong side. The spot shown is totally on the right side of the driver of the fiat car and accordingly the spot panchanama was drawn. Such sketch panchanama are not of any use for the prosecution to establish their case on the point that the respondent drove his vehicle on the wrong side. After impact, the vehicles driven in speed on the National Highway are bound to be in motion and they are bound to move at random direction. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove the spot of the impact and could not establish that the accident has taken place, as the vehicle fiat was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent. The possibility that impact might have taken place at the middle of the road or towards eastern side of the road cannot be overruled. Thus, which vehicle went on the wrong side of the road is not established by the prosecution to prove rashness and negligence. 7. Hence, the judgment passed by the learned JMFC cannot be faulted. No interference is required. Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.