JUDGMENT 1. By this revision application, the Applicant impugns the Order dtd. 7/9/2021, passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Mapusa, in Sessions Case No. 7/2018. By that order, the Court framed charges for offences under Sec. 304(ii), 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The facts in brief reveal that the Accused was a driver of a tipper truck no. GA-05-T-1805, which had broken down in the Page 1 of 6 23/3/2022 908-CRIR-59-2022-F.DOC middle of the NH-17 highway, at Naibag, Pernem, partially obstructing vehicular traffic. The truck broke down in the wee hours around 01.30 hours on 20/1/2017 within the jurisdiction of the Pernem Police Station. The Accused allegedly left the vehicle at the spot where it broke down viz on an ascending slope. No hazard warning lights were switched on and no signs were put up near the vehicle to warn vehicles approaching the spot of the fact that the tipper truck had broken down. A Tata Safari vehicle which was proceeding from Patradevi to Dhargal, collided with the stationery tipper truck at about 01.30 hours. As a result, the front seat passenger suffered injuries and succumbed to his injuries and other occupants suffered minor and grievous injuries. The Court framed charges under Sec. 304(ii), 337 and 338 of IPC along with Sec. 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the Accused appearing in support of revision submitted that the charge of Sec. 304(ii) of IPC was unwarranted. The tipper truck suffered a break down and was rendered immobile. He submitted that the gear box and mechanicals were removed for repairs and the truck could not be moved. At best, this is a case of negligence but not one which could attract Sec. Page 2 of 6 23/3/2022 908-CRIR-59-2022-F.DOC 304 part II. Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for the Applicant, therefore submitted that no case was made out for framing the subject charges. 4. Mr. At best, this is a case of negligence but not one which could attract Sec. Page 2 of 6 23/3/2022 908-CRIR-59-2022-F.DOC 304 part II. Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for the Applicant, therefore submitted that no case was made out for framing the subject charges. 4. Mr. Faldessai opposed the application on the ground that the Accused had consciously left the scene knowing fully well that tipper truck left in a dark spot without any hazard warning lights could cause a serious accident and that such accident could result in death of persons involved and despite such knowledge, he had left the truck on the spot and made no efforts to secure appropriate hazard warnings to be displayed at site. Therefore, it is submitted that it is always open for the Accused to make out a case against the prosecution for offence punishable under Sec. 304(ii). He, therefore, submitted that the revision application calls for no interference. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. My attention has been invited to the fact that the gear box and other equipments had to be removed from the truck. The mechanic who had come to the site, had taken away the gear box and there was no way to remove the truck. It was contended that it was not in the middle of the road. My attention has been invited to the panchanama and the sketch prepared in the presence of the panchas, which reveal that a portion Page 3 of 6 23/3/2022 908-CRIR-59-2022-F.DOC of the truck was towards the edge of the road and the rear portion was angularly aligned towards the middle of the road. The fact that the vehicle approaching from behind had seen the tipper truck in this condition, is evident from the statement of the driver of the Tata Safari. The statement of the driver of the Tata Safari vehicle admits of sighting the tipper truck and then admitting to an attempt to overtake it on the right side. However, an oncoming vehicle was spotted which led to the driver of the Tata Safari aborting the attempt to overtake and thus colliding with the stationary truck. The statement of the driver of the Tata Safari vehicle admits of sighting the tipper truck and then admitting to an attempt to overtake it on the right side. However, an oncoming vehicle was spotted which led to the driver of the Tata Safari aborting the attempt to overtake and thus colliding with the stationary truck. The statement also shows that there was a traffic sign showing a curve on the road and what is also material to note is that the truck was on an ascending slope and it appears that the Tata Safari vehicle would have been at a considerably high speed despite the ascending slope to have so collided. 6. In my view, this is not a case where the Accused has caused death while driving the tipper truck in a rash or negligent manner. The truck was stationary and this could have been a case of causing death by negligence and thereby attracting the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC. Page 4 of 6 23/3/2022 908-CRIR-59-2022-F.DOC 7. Considering the material on record, I am of the view, that framing charge under Sec. 304(ii) is not justified. Offences punishable under Ss. 122 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act are being pursued. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the charge can be altered provided the same is read to the Accused and in this behalf, exercising the powers of this Court to alter the charge, I am of the view that the impugned Order to the extent it frames charge under Sec. 304(ii) is required to be set aside. Charge under Sec. 304-A is required to be framed. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following Order : (i) The impugned Order dtd. 7/9/2021 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Mapusa, to the extent it frames charge for offence punishable under Sec. 304(ii) of IPC, is set aside. (ii) The trial Court to proceed to frame charges under Sec. 304-A of IPC. (iii) Charge to be read over to the Accused as contemplated under Sec. 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Page 5 of 6 23/3/2022 908-CRIR-59-2022-F.DOC (iv) Revision Application is allowed to the aforesaid extent and is disposed in the above terms. A. K. MENON, J Page 6 of 6 23/3/2022