1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2008 State (Through Police Inspector, Pernem Police Station) Pernem-Goa. ... Appellant versus Santosh Keshav Shet, House No.84, Talarna, Pernem-Goa. ... Respondent Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Appellant. Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 6TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the State of Goa and is directed against Judgment dated 9-7-2007 of the learned J.M.F.C., Pernem, by which the learned J.M.F.C. has acquitted the Respondent/Accused under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A, I.P.C. 2 2. There is no dispute that the accident took place between a Canter pick-up bearing No.GA-01-Z-1071 driven by Samir S. Gawde and the Tipper truck bearing No.GA-01-V-2341 driven by the accused. In the said accident, the said Samir S. Gawde along with the cleaner by name Govind Nilkanth Kambli expired and their death was proved by the prosecution with the evidence of Dr. Silvano Dias Sapeco/PW8. Hanumanth Patel/PW6 who was in the cabin of the said Canter pick-up and the accused suffered injuries and there is no dispute about it. Grievous injuries to Patel/PW6 were proved by Exh.32. 3. The accident took place at Malpem on the National Highway No.17. There is no dispute that the Canter pick-up was going up the slope from Patradevi to Panaji while the Tipper truck of the accused was going down the slope in opposite direction from Panaji to Patradevi. The scene of offence was proved by the evidence of Prakash Gawde/PW1 and ASI Narayan Gawas/PW9. The width of the National Highway at that place is 7.9 meters demarcated by divider line, into two lanes and both the vehicles, after the impact have been shown partly off the road, on the eastern side of the said National Highway. The spot of accident is also shown in the lane in which the Canter pick-up was passing. As stated by Prakash Gawde/PW1, and as also can be seen from the panchanama and the sketch produced by the prosecution, after the accident the vehicles were in horizontal position. According to him, the total front portion of the Canter mini pick-up was damaged and the dead bodies were trapped inside the cabin. The front wheels of the Tipper truck were in the water drain and the front wheels of the 3 Canter pick-up were on the kutcha road. As stated by him, the spot of accident was 0.7 meters from the divider line on the left hand side of the road as one proceeds to Mapusa. According to him, the Tipper truck was totally damaged towards the cleaner side. The prosecution examined three witnesses, as eye witnesses to the occurrence of the accident, namely, Pramod V. Polji, Head Constable/PW2, working in the Police Department, Gurudas Shetgaonkar/PW4 who was at the relevant time passing on his scooter, and Hanumanth Patel/PW6 who was requested by the deceased Samir S. Gawde to accompany him to Vasco in the said Canter pick-up. 4. The learned trial Court discarded the evidence of the said three witnesses and acquitted the accused. According to the learned trial Court Pramod Polji/PW2 was a Police Officer and he had given a false statement to the Police to support the case of the prosecution. As regards Gurudas Shetgaonkar/PW4, the learned trial Court observed that he had reached in front when the accident took place, and, therefore could not have seen what had happened behind his back. As regards Hanumanth Patel/PW6, the learned trial Court stated that he had changed his version. 5. Firstly, it must be stated, and there cannot be two opinions about it, and otherwise it is well settled by a catena of decisions by the Apex Court that if the trial Court's view is reasonably possible, the High Court will not reverse the order of the acquittal of the trial Court merely on the ground that a different view 4 is possible on the evidence produced, but, at the same time, it is equally well settled that this Court in an appeal against acquittal is entitled to review the entire evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based and arrived at its own conclusion, more so, when the findings given by the learned trial Court are perverse, and, that is precisely the case at hand. 6. Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Appellant, submits that the panchanama and the sketch which have been proved by the prosecution clearly show that the Tipper truck of the accused went on the other side lane, gave a dash on the Canter pick-up and went beyond the road and this itself shows that the accused, the driver of the said Tipper truck was rash and negligent. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the version of the accused that the deceased driver of the Canter pick-up came and dashed against his truck is a version which is impossible to be accepted, since if that was the case, both the vehicles would not have been partly in the lane of the highway which was meant for the driver of the Canter Pick-Up. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that Pramod Polji/PW2 who was a Police Officer could not be labelled as an interested witness and that his presence at the scene was natural as he was returning to Panaji where he was working, and, therefore his version could not be doubted. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance in the case of Baburao Kudalkar v. State of Goa(unreported Judgment dated 6/7th May, 2009 in Criminal Revision Application No.11 of 2009) in which case this Court after relying on various decisions of the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the 5 principle of res ipsa loquitur could be followed in criminal cases as well. In this case, reference was made to the case of Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab(AIR 1980 SC 84) as well as to Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab(2004 SCC(Cri.) 1183). In the first case, the Apex Court had observed that it was fair to apply the rule of res ipse loquitur, with care, and that conventional defences, except under compelling evidence, must break down before the pragmatic Court and must be given short shrift. In the case of Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab(supra) the bus of the accused was driven over the bridge and had fallen into the canal and the Apex Court stated that in such a situation the doctrine of res ipse loquitur comes into play and the burden shifts on the man who was in control of the automobile to establish that the accident did not happen on account of any negligence on his part and thus the contention that there was no negligence was rejected by the Apex Court. 7. Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent/Accused has placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in the case of Gajanan Majik v. State(2006(1) AIR Bom R 486). In this case, it was observed that the evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the defence had clearly shown that the accident had taken place because of a mechanical defect mainly because the steering of the bus had got locked at the time when it met with the accident with the motor-cyclist. The Court observed that it was true that the bus could be seen from the sketch, having gone to the right, beyond the road along with the said motor-cycle but on this count alone one certainly could not 6 come to the conclusion that the accused/driver of the said bus was driving it rashly and negligently more so because the motor-cycle was coming from its opposite direction. In my view, the observations in that case are totally irrelevant as far as the facts of this case are concerned. It can be seen from the panchanama and the sketch that the road at the place of accident was clearly demarcated into two lanes by a divider line and it is the accused who went from his left side to the wrong side and gave a dash on the oncoming Canter pick-up. The defence of the accused is that it is the Canter pick-up which came and dashed his Tipper truck. If that is so, both the vehicles could not be found on the eastern side towards the end of the other lane on which the Canter pick-up was coming but on the contrary they would have been found either in the lane of the accused or on the western side. This clearly shows that the accused whilst going down the slope drove his vehicle in a fast speed and went on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the oncoming Canter pick-up, and in doing so it could be certainly said that the accused, the driver of the Tipper truck, was negligent in driving. 8. In this case, otherwise also, there is evidence to show that it is the accused who went from the left lane to the right(wrong) lane and gave a dash on the said Canter pick-up. The first witness examined as an eye witness by the prosecution is none other than Pramod V. Polji/PW2 who was returning to Panaji from his house at Sawalwado in Pernem. He stated that prior to reaching the National Highway at Malpem, he saw two trucks, out of which one was a mini tipper truck bearing No.GA-01-Z-1071 which was proceeding from Patradevi to 7 Mapusa and the other was a Tata tipper bearing No.GA-01-V-2341 which was proceeding from Mapusa to Patradevi. He stated that he saw the said Tata tipper truck was in a fast speed and the said Tata tipper proceeded from the left side towards the right hand side and gave a dash to the mini pick-up from the front side and due to the said dash both the vehicles were facing on the east, and he immediately got down from his vehicle and proceeded to the spot of accident and saw two persons trapped in the cabin of the mini truck. He identified the accused as the driver of the mini truck, regarding which otherwise there is no dispute. He also stated that he proceeded to help the injured persons, when he saw two persons trapped in the cabin of the pick-up and helped to remove the dead bodies from the cabin of the said pick-up and thereafter he proceeded for his work at Panaji. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place on account of the fault of the driver of the Canter pick-up. He admitted that there is a petrol pump near the spot of accident facing towards Mapusa side at a distance of 30 meters from the accident spot. He also stated that there was a bus stop near the spot of accident on the National Highway road. He has also stated that prior to reaching the National Highway at Malpem he had seen two trucks, namely pick-up bearing No.GA-01-Z-1071 and a Tata tipper bearing No.GA-01-V-2341. 9. The learned trial Court did not accept the evidence of Pramod V. Polji/PW2, as according to the learned Magistrate, he was not an eye witness because he was driving his vehicle on the internal road. The said witness had clearly stated that he was coming from Pernem, and, as can be seen from the 8 sketch the highway is from Panaji to Patradevi, and, if he was coming from Pernem he could have certainly seen the accident from the said internal road which meets the said highway and on that count his evidence could not be rejected. That apart, the defence had not made any effort to demonstrate that he was in such a place that from the place he was, the accident could not be seen by him and in the absence of such effort, his statement that he had seen the accident, simply could not be brushed aside only because he was a Police Officer, more so when no reason was assigned, on behalf of the defence, as to why he had supported one driver against another. He was a most natural and probable witness to have witnessed the accident as he was on his way to office from his residence. It is now well settled law that the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded by merely giving him a label. The Apex Court in Natu Singh v. State of M. P.(AIR 1973 SC 2783) has stated that the mere fact that the witnesses are Police Officers was not enough to discard their evidence in the absence of any reason being shown as regards the hostility towards the accused. Even otherwise, it is well settled law, as stated by the Apex Court in Hari Obula Reddi and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh(AIR 1981 SC 82) that it is not the rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution, and if the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstance of the particular case, to base a conviction. The learned Magistrate has jumped to the 9 conclusion that because he is a Police Officer he has given a false statement, even when his evidence was otherwise compatible with the circumstantial evidence of the scene of the offence. Pramod Polji/PW2 had emerged as a truthful and reliable witness and his evidence could not be discarded in the manner done by the learned trial Court, and his evidence shows that it is the accused who was in a fast speed, left his left side of the road and went on the other side i.e. wrong side and dashed on the oncoming Canter pick-up causing the death of two of its occupants and injuring another. 10. The prosecution had also examined Gurudas Shetgaonkar/PW4 who was going away, after filling petrol, at the petrol pump in the same direction as the accused. According to him, when he had reached ahead, he saw the accident taking place on his rear side between both the trucks. He also stated that the tipper truck(of the accused) came in a fast speed and gave a dash to the mini truck from the front side and after the accident, two dead bodies were found in the mini pick-up. In the cross-examination, he might have stated that he was not knowing about the truck being driven by the accused, and he was told about it by the other persons who were present, but that was no ground to discard his entire evidence. In this country, we do not follow the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and only on that count the evidence of Gurudas Shetgaonkar/PW4 could not be rejected. It is quite possible that he might not have actually seen the accident but certainly after hearing the sound he must have turned back and seen in that process the tipper truck going off the road in a fast speed. 10 11. The Apex Court has reiterated in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat(1988 SCC(Cri) 559) that “this Court has held that falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered ..” 12. The next witness examined by the prosecution was the injured himself and his evidence has been discarded by the learned trial Court because he had stated before the police that he was sitting behind, and before the Court that he was sitting in the cabin. His presence could not be doubted because he was an injured witness and as stated by the Apex Court in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat(supra) he should be considered as the best eye witness and the Court whilst appreciating the evidence of such witness must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. Nowhere he had stated that he was sitting in the carrier of the truck, and he could not be sitting in carrier on the sand, when the deceased Samir had invited him to accompany him to go to Vasco. It is quite probable that when he stated that he was sitting behind he only meant that he was sitting on the second seat in the cabin of the said pick-up. It is not unknown that some of these big modern pick-ups have a seat behind the driver's seat. He had 11 stated that when they had reached Malpem slope, on the National Highway No.17, the truck driven by the accused bearing No.GA-01-V-2341 came in a fast speed and dashed on the mini Canter pick-up due to which the entire cabin of the Canter pick-up was damaged and thereafter he became unconscious, and due to the accident he had sustained fracture on his left leg and had also sustained injuries on his finger of the left hand as well as on the forehead. He had also stated that the accused who was present in the Court was driving the said Tipper truck. Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused points out that in case this witness had become unconscious he could not have seen the accused driving the said Tipper truck. It is more than probable that he had seen the said Tipper truck as it came towards them and before he was rendered unconscious. The evidence of this witness also clearly shows that it is the accused who drove the truck in a fast speed, went on the wrong side and gave a dash on the said Canter pick-up. 13. Damages to both the vehicles were proved through Bhalchandra Sawant/PW5, a R.T.O. Inspector. 14. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, both circumstantial as well as of eye witnesses it was clearly proved by the prosecution that the accused, the driver of the Tipper truck, drove the same in a fast speed, left his lane and went towards the wrong side and dashed on the Canter pick-up driven by the deceased causing injuries to the occupants of the same. The very fact that the accused went from the left side to the right side and without any explanation from 12 his part, clearly shows that he was grossly negligent. It is to be noted that a vehicle driver, is expected to keep the vehicle always in a state of control, and on his side of the road, sufficient to enable him to avoid running into any passenger or vehicle who may step in or fail to step off the road. Section 304-A speaks of causing death by an act which is rash or negligent. Whether an accused in a particular case acted rashly or negligently depends on facts of each case. The condition of the road, the amount of traffic at that time of accident or which might reasonably be expected to be on the road, are factors to be considered in assessing the rashness or negligence of the driver. In rashness, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence, in the words of the Apex Court in Sant Ram v. Rajasthan ((1968) 1 SCR 121) means gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care which was the imperative duty of the accused to have exercised. Criminal negligence is want of such degree of care as is required in particular circumstances of the case. In other words, the very fact that the accused as the driver of the Tipper truck drove the same in a fast speed on a road which is down the slope and went to the right and dashed on the oncoming vehicle in the other lane is nothing but gross negligence on his part. The only explanation given by the accused is that the said Canter pick-up came and dashed against him. If that was possible then both the vehicles would have been found on the left side of the road and not on the right side of the road on the way from Mapusa to Patradevi. The appreciation of evidence done by the trial Court is nothing but perverse. True, the burden was on the prosecution to show that the accused who is driving his 13 Tipper truck was rash or negligent and that burden was amply discharged by the prosecution not only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence but on the testimony of the said three eye witnesses and particularly of Pramod V. Polji/PW2. 15. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to succeed and the impugned Judgment/Order is hereby set aside and consequently the accused is hereby convicted under Sections 304-A and 338, IPC. 16. At the request of Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent, stand over tomorrow i.e. 7-8-2009 for pronouncement of sentence. N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 7TH AUGUST, 2009. 17. On the point of sentence, Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel submits that the accused is 32 years old and he is the only bread winner who looks after his old parents who are entirely dependent on him. Learned Counsel further submits that from the time of the accident, the accused has stopped driving. Learned Counsel also submits that Section 304-A is punishable either with imprisonment or with fine and as the accused has no past criminal record, the accused be either imposed with fine or dealt with under the Probation of 14 Offenders Act, and in support of his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi ((2008) 4 SCC 185). 18. On the other hand, Shri C. A. Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case cited does not lay down any law and the sentence imposed was passed by the Apex Court considering the peculiar facts of that case, and, this appears to be so, considering that the accused in that case on the same charge was dismissed from service and the trial itself was going on for 20 years. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that in this case the accused has been responsible in taking away the lives of two persons, namely, Govind Nilkant Kambli who was just 45 years of age and Samir Gawde who was just 25 years of age, and learned Counsel has also placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 6/7-5-2009 in Criminal Revision Application No.11 of 2009 in the case of Baburao Kudalkar v. State of Goa and Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2008 in the case of State of Goa v. Devendra Kashinath(unreported decision dated 18-7-2009). 19. In the case of Prabakharan v. State of Kerala((2007) 14 SCC 269, the Apex Court took note that 82,000 people were killed on the roads in the year 2002 and the estimate of people injured is taken 15 to 20 time more than that figure. This Court in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2008 by Judgment dated 18-7-2009 has taken note of the fact that the highways in this State of Goa may be 15 technically highways but at places even two vehicles cannot move comfortably, and the figures published by the Superintendent of Police(Traffic) show that in the year 2008, 318 persons were killed on the roads in 294 fatal accidents,