JUDGMENT : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. 1. The petitioner herein has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 21st November, 2016 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2016, whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanguem in Criminal Case No. 41/A/2013 dated 15/3/2016. 2. The petitioner was working as a driver of Kadamba Transport Corporation (“KTC” for short) bearing Registration No.GA-01-X-0447. On 2.2.2013 at about 7.45 hours, he was driving the aforesaid bus from Collem towards Sanvordem. He drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and thereby gave a violent dash to the Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing No.GA-09-F-6126 of the deceased namely Ibrahim s/o Maula Saba Nagur, who was coming from opposite direction. The dash was so violent that the deceased Ibrahim succumbed to his injuries, which were to the vital parts of his body. 3. An F.I.R. came to be registered (Exhibit D-2) against the petitioner on the same day with Curchorem Police Station at about 13.05 hours. An offence came to be registered against the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, vide F.I.R. No. 09/2013. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and tried by the learned Magistrate, who after recording the evidence and after hearing the prosecution and the defence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 21.11.2016. 5. I have heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6. In short, it is argued at the bar that the prosecution has failed to establish the point of impact and so also the panchanama. According to the learned counsel, the only evidence available on record is that the petitioner was seen driving the bus in a fast speed. There is no evidence on record to show that he was, in any way, rash or negligent while driving the said bus. According to the learned counsel, the only evidence available on record is that the petitioner was seen driving the bus in a fast speed. There is no evidence on record to show that he was, in any way, rash or negligent while driving the said bus. It has not been established by the prosecution as to whether the bus was being driven by its wrong side or whether it was the victim, who came to the wrong side, resulting into an accident. The evidence of an eye witness vis-a-vis panchanama could not be reconciled, as there are no skid marks on the road. There is also no evidence that the deceased had a driving license. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for acquittal of the accused. 7. Per contra, Shri Rivankar, the learned Public Prosecutor, drew my attention to the evidence in the form of the spot panchanama coupled with the testimonies of PW 3-Sayyad Ashraf and PW 9-Sadanand Desai, the Investigating Officer. 8. Undisputedly, the petitioner was driving the KTC bus from Collem towards Sanvordem on the day of incident and also there is no dispute as regards the fact that there is a slight turn and slope at the spot. PW 3-Sayyad Ashraf, an eye witness, deposed that at the relevant time, he too was proceeding to his house from Sanvordem on his scooty. While returning from Sanvordem, he noticed the deceased on his motorbike at a distance about 20 meters from him. The KTC bus came in a fast speed from Guddemol side and dashed against the motorcycle in front of this witness resulting into fall of the said motorcycle on the road. PW 3-Sayyad, therefore, rushed to the injured and noticed him with injuries. 9. Before adverting to the evidence of other witnesses examined by the prosecution, it would be essential to scan and evaluate the evidence of PW 3-Sayyad, who in his cross-examination, also specifically deposed that the accident took place at 7.45 a.m. and he noticed that KTC bus moving in a fast speed. He was at a distance of 20 meters. It has also been brought in his cross-examination that the width of the road at the spot was 9.70 meters, which is corroborated by PW 9-Sadanand Desai, the Investigating Officer, coupled with the sketch drawn along with spot panchanama. He was at a distance of 20 meters. It has also been brought in his cross-examination that the width of the road at the spot was 9.70 meters, which is corroborated by PW 9-Sadanand Desai, the Investigating Officer, coupled with the sketch drawn along with spot panchanama. It has also been elicited that there was no traffic on the road and there is some slope from Guddemol to Sanvordem. The testimony of PW 3-Sayyad, inspires confidence and appears to be quite natural and cogent in the light of the fact that he could have said something more about rashness or negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner in order to exaggerate the facts. He cannot be said to be an interested witness only for the reason that he hails from the same locality where the deceased used to reside. Rather, this witness waited on the spot till the arrival of police and the ambulance, which he called by dialing 108. Minor discrepancies in his cross-examination as well as small omissions and contradictions would not render his testimony unworthy of credit. His evidence is quite believable and is proper so far as time, venue and manner of occurrence is concerned. He has no axe to grind against the petitioner. 10. PW 6-Babu Naik is a panch witness who turned hostile. However, he has admitted his signature over the panchanama (Ex.C-23) and also upon the sketch drawn by the Investigating Officer. Interestingly, in his cross-examination the defence has fortified the factum of his presence on the spot at the time of drawing the panchanama. It appears that PW 6-Babu Naik has turned hostile for the reasons best known to him. However, it can be said that he is deliberately telling lie. His signature over the spot panchanama and sketch confirm the fact that he was present on the spot when the panchanama was drawn. 11. Turning back to the testimony of PW 9-Sadanand Dessai, who deposed about the manner in which he conducted investigation into the crime. Only because there is no evidence as regards the number of passengers in the bus and not recording their statements would not be fatal to the prosecution because as that would not be relevant factor. It was the duty of the petitioner to drive the bus at a speed which will not imperil the safety of others using the road. Only because there is no evidence as regards the number of passengers in the bus and not recording their statements would not be fatal to the prosecution because as that would not be relevant factor. It was the duty of the petitioner to drive the bus at a speed which will not imperil the safety of others using the road. Relationship between speed and rashness depends upon the place, time and manner of the accident. Important criteria for deciding whether driving which lead to the accident was rash or negligent would include not only the speed of the vehicle but also the width of the road, density of traffic and other relevant factors. The learned JMFC and lower Appellate Court have, therefore, correctly and properly appreciated the facts, evidence and circumstances on record to reach a proper conclusion that the road was without traffic and so also the petitioner drove his bus to the extreme right by crossing the exact middle lane resulting into the violent dash to the motorcyclist of the deceased. Death is, as such, a direct result of rash and negligent act of the petitioner sans intervention of another's negligence. 12. Negligence means breach of duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. Culpable negligence is acting without consciousness that illegal or mischievous effects would follow, but, in the circumstances, which show that the actor has not exercised a caution incumbent on him, and that if he had, if he would have had the consciousness. Here in the case at hand, the petitioner indeed committed breach of his duties due to his omission to drive the vehicle in a moderate speed even after noticing the motorbike coming from the opposite direction. He had lost sight of the fact of the curve and slope at the spot of incident which can be said to be another important factor pointing towards his negligence. He drove the bus on a public way so negligently as it would have endangered human life. 13. A bare look at the sketch drawn by the Investigating Officer clearly indicates that the total width of the tar road was to the extent of 9.70 meters. He drove the bus on a public way so negligently as it would have endangered human life. 13. A bare look at the sketch drawn by the Investigating Officer clearly indicates that the total width of the tar road was to the extent of 9.70 meters. The point of impact was at a distance of 5.10 meters from the rear side of the bus. The distance between the spot of accident and the left edge side of the tar road if one proceed towards Sanvordem was 5.90 meters. The distance from the point of impact to edge of tar road from right hand side while facing towards Sanvordem was 3.80 meters. It is thus manifest as to how the petitioner negligently drove the bus towards the right side of the road while proceeding towards Sanvordem and thereby gave a violent dash to the motorbike of the petitioner. 14. PW 5-Rameshrao Uttam Desai, who is the Conductor of the said bus, deposed that the accident took place near a turn on a slope of the road which further corroborates the testimony of PW 3-Sayyad and PW 9-Sadanand Dessai. He obviously would not say the manner in which the bus was being driven by the petitioner. However, in his cross-examination, it is elicited that there were 40 passengers in the bus when the accident took place. In such a eventuality, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to take utmost care as it would have put life of passengers in danger. PW 1-Prakash is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had inspected both the vehicles. He clarified that the Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle was so damaged, in the sense that its front wheel disc rim was broken, handle was bent, brake lever was broken, headlights were damaged and the vehicle could not be driven. As regards the bus, he clarified that the front right hand side of the bumper, headlight and the right hand side portion had a dent and headlight was broken. He made it very clear that the brakes of the KTC bus and its engine was in a working condition, which rules out any possibility of technical defect. He has issued a certificate to that effect. 15. PW 4-Dr. Darshana Naik was attached to the Urban Community Health Centre at Curchorem Goa as Medical officer had examined the deceased Ibrahim, who was brought to the Health Centre. He has issued a certificate to that effect. 15. PW 4-Dr. Darshana Naik was attached to the Urban Community Health Centre at Curchorem Goa as Medical officer had examined the deceased Ibrahim, who was brought to the Health Centre. She noticed the following injuries:— (i) abrasion on frontal bone of face 1 × 1 cms and abrasion on the nose 5 × 5 cms, CLW on the chin 6 × 5 cms suturing done, (ii) 2 abrasions on the right hand below and above ring finger, abrasion on left leg near medical malleolus 5 × 1 cms, abrasion on big toe on left leg 5 × 5, (iii) abrasion on right leg big toe-5 × 1 cms, CLW on left wrist suturing done, CLW on the left small finger, CLW on right knee, 2 × 3 cms suturing done, (iv) abrasion below right knee 1 × 5 cms, abrasion on right leg shin 1 × 5 cms. Query dislocation of radius ulna, query fracture femer of right knee, query fracture ribs on the left side of the chest, query maxilollofacial fractures and blunt abdominal trauma. 16. Accordingly, she had issued a hurt certificate. She clearly opined that the said injuries can be caused if a person is hit by a running bus and then falls on the tar road due to the impact. Similarly, PW 2-Dr. Chetan, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Ibrahim stated that cause of death is due to craniocerebral damage associated with cervial spine injury and fracture of long bones consequent to blunt force impact by object and/or surface. The autopsy report is at Exh. C-10. He clearly opined that the injuries led to the death of deceased could be possible by dash of bus to the motorcycle. During cross-examination of both the doctors, nothing could be elicited which would render their testimonies unbelievable. 17. PW 7 Lavu Chodankar, an Assistant Traffic Superintendent of KTC substantiated the fact that on the day of accident the petitioner was allotted the said bus bearing no. GA-01-X-0447. This is significant in the light of the fact that the petitioner had taken a defence that he was not driving the bus. 18. 17. PW 7 Lavu Chodankar, an Assistant Traffic Superintendent of KTC substantiated the fact that on the day of accident the petitioner was allotted the said bus bearing no. GA-01-X-0447. This is significant in the light of the fact that the petitioner had taken a defence that he was not driving the bus. 18. Both the trial and the First Appellate Courts have, as stated above, correctly and properly appreciated the facts, evidence and circumstances on record and reached concurrent findings that on the fateful day it was the petitioner because of whose rash and negligent driving the accident took place resulting into death of the deceased. 19. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a case law of this Court, reported in 2011 (O) BCI 84 (State v. Ian Joseph Salazar). In the said case, learned Magistrate had convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. The lower Appellate Court observed that the prosecution was not successful in proving the spot of accident and there were interse contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses and, therefore, acquitted the accused of the offence for which he was convicted by the learned Magistrate. In the said case, it appears that there were material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses. The evidence was short and insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and there was no evidence of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. For those reasons, the accused was acquitted. 20. In case of State of Goa v. Constancio P. Branganza reported in 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 3678, wherein the accused was acquitted because it was brought in cross that the offending bus was on its correct side while proceeding from Margao to Karwar and Maruti van had just overtaken a tipper. There was no evidence attributing rashness and negligence on the part of the accused nor there was clear evidence of panch witnesses establishing the point of impact of the two vehicles which is not a case in hand. 21. Both these authorities, therefore, can be distinguished accordingly. 22. There was no evidence attributing rashness and negligence on the part of the accused nor there was clear evidence of panch witnesses establishing the point of impact of the two vehicles which is not a case in hand. 21. Both these authorities, therefore, can be distinguished accordingly. 22. In case of Nilesh Salgaonkar v. State of Goa reported in (2013 (O) BCI 78), wherein the vehicle in question was on the left side of the road, the petitioner could not succeed in overtaking the vehicle in front nor the witnesses have testified that the petitioner was attempting to overtake the vehicle from wrong side. There was no evidence of any of the passengers in the bus as regards the speed of the bus. Thus, on that basis the accused came to be acquitted. Here the evidence is quite clinching indicating the manner in which the accident took place. 23. The ratio, therefore, can be accordingly distinguished and would not be applicable to the present set of facts. 24. As a Revisional Court, it would not be proper to upset the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Trial as well as First Appellate Court. The evidence on record is clear, trustworthy and unimpeached. The impugned judgments do not warrant interference, as there is absolutely no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness. 25. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated 21st November, 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2016 is hereby confirmed.