Orissa High Court
Gangadhar Biswal vs State Of Orissa on 17 July, 1989
Equivalent citations: I(1990)ACC329, 1990ACJ896
JUDGMENT S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. Being convicted under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 500/- by the appellate court, petitioner has preferred this revision.
2. Prosecution case is that on 10.9.1979 at about 3 p.m. while accused who was driving the bus ORP 3294 from Puri to Bhubaneswar rashly and negligently, ran over two cyclists near the office of the Block Development Officer and Tahsildar, Pipili causing their death. Petitioner denied to be driving the vehicle with rashness and negligence and pleaded not to be guilty of any offence.
3. Prosecution has examined five witnesses which included eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Appreciating their evidence both the courts found that the road at the spot of accident was pitched 12 feet wide. Both sides of the pitched portion were metalled 10 feet wide each. Thus, end to end it was 32 feet wide. Portion of the road at the spot was being repaired and flag was placed to warn about the repair. There was a narrow passage for the bus to move. On one side there was a ditch and heaps of metal were kept on the other side. Another bus had already entered at the place of repair into the narrow passage. The two ill-fated cyclists were on the heap of metal when the bus No. ORP 3294 came in speed and ran over them.
4. On the aforesaid finding there cannot be any doubt that petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently. Driver of a passenger bus is required to be more careful than drivers of other vehicles because he is taking care of transport of human lives. Driver of any vehicle, far less to speak of a passenger bus, would take adequate care before entering into a passage as described above. Added to it, there was indication that the road was under repair. It might be that the bus from the other side violated the road discipline. That would not, however, absolve the petitioner not to take care for safety of the movement of his vehicle. If the vehicle would not have been beyond the required speed it could not have run over the two cyclists on the metal heap. These circumstances are sufficient to draw an inference that petitioner was guilty of rashness and negligence in driving and both the courts rightly found him guilty of offence both under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Coming to the sentence, it is found that the offence was committed more than ten years back, in the year 1979. Petitioner has grown older in the meantime. However, imposition of substantive sentence in the present case is justified. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one month in the circumstances would be adequate. There is no scope for reducing the sentence of fine which is confirmed. In default to pay fine, petitioner to undergo R.I. for one month.
6. In the result, Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed, subject to modification of sentence as indicated above.