1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2009 Venkatesh Krishna Harijan, S/o Krishna Harijan, Aged 26 years, Indian National, Unmarried, R/o House No.29, Feira Alto, Mapusa, Goa. ... Applicant/Accused versus State of Goa, Through Police Inspector, Mapusa Police Station. ... Respondent Shri R. Rao, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2009. ORAL ORDER Heard Shri R. Rao, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant/Accused. 2. This is a revision filed by the Applicant/Accused who has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 279, 338 I.P.C. and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and by Judgment/Order dated 30-8-2008 and which 2 conviction and sentence has been upheld by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Panaji by Judgment/Order dated 12-2-2009. 3. The case of the prosecution was that on 8-1-2006 at about 9.00 p.m. at Feira, Alta, Mapusa, the accused drove his Yamaha bearing No.GA-01-F-3877 in a rash and negligent manner whilst proceeding from the Court junction, Mapusa towards Peddem, Mapusa and dashed against a Kinetic Honda bearing No.GA-03- M-3164 which was coming in opposite direction thereby causing injuries to Martin Fernandes, the rider of the said Kinetic Honda scooter and grievous injuries to Patricia Fernandes, the pillion rider of the said scooter. 4. In support of the charge, prosecution had examined eight witnesses in all. The learned trial Court observed that the injuries received by the two victims, were confirmed by Dr. Agnes Mascarenhas/PW5 and Dr. Sunita Redkar/PW7. There is no dispute as far as the said medical evidence is concerned. The learned trial Court also referred to the evidence of the Motor Vehicles Inspector Shri Rajesh Shetye/PW6 and observed that from the estimate of extensive damages it could be seen that the impact between both the vehicles was severe and the prosecution had proved the said damages to the scooters through the evidence of Shri Shetye/PW6. The learned first appellate Court observed that from the sketch it could be seen that the Kinetic Honda scooter which was driven by the injured was on the left side of the road whilst proceeding to Peddem and from the evidence on record it could be seen that the Accused was driving the 3 vehicle in a rash and negligent manner thereby endangering the lives of persons driving on the road. The learned first appellate Court further observed that from the evidence on record and from the sketch at Exh.14 colly, it could be seen that the injured was to his side of the road and thus an offence under Section 279 I.P.C. has been proved by the prosecution. The learned first appellate Court therefore held that the trial Court had come to the right conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the Accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 5. Admittedly, Kinetic Honda scooter bearing No.GA-03-M-3164 driven by Martin Fernandes/PW1 on which his daughter Patricia Fernandes/PW2 was travelling, was proceeding from the Court junction towards Peddem. They were followed by another Activa scooter driven by Perpetua, another daughter of the said Martin/PW1 on which Catherine, his wife/PW4 were travelling. The Accused was coming in opposite direction. As stated by Martin/PW1, he was returning home on that day and his daughter, the said Patricia was the pillion rider and when they reached near Luis-Olive apartments at about 9.00 p.m. the Accused came from opposite direction with full speed and dashed against his Kinetic Honda, as a result of which he fell on the right hand side of the road along with the bike and his daughter also fell down thereby causing multiple compound fracture on his left leg and that of his daughter who sustained an injury on her right leg. He also stated that at the relevant time his wife was behind him with his elder daughter, on a Honda Activa scooter. He further stated that on the relevant 4 day he was riding his bike on the left hand side of the road whilst proceeding from Court junction to Peddem road. Patricia/PW2 also stated that her father was riding the said scooter and they were proceeding from Mapusa towards Peddem and when they reached near Luis-Olive apartments and they were on the left side of the road facing Peddem the Accused came on his Yamaha motor cycle from the opposite direction in a very fast speed and dashed their Kinetic Honda scooter head on and as a result both of them i.e. the father and herself were thrown on the road and she suffered injury on her thigh bone while her father's ankle was broken. 6. To prove the panchanama and the sketch prepared by Head Constable Shetye/PW8 prosecution examined John Dias/PW3 who resides at a close distance where the accident took place and who otherwise is related to the family of Martin/PW1. The panchanama and the sketch clearly show that the Kinetic Honda Scooter driven by Martin/PW1 was found on the left side of the road i.e. its back wheel was at a distance of 1.60 meters from the left edge of the tar road and likewise the front wheel of the motor cycle driven by the Accused was also at a distance of about 1.60 meters from the edge of the left side of the said road. The very fact that the scooter driven by Martin/PW1 was found on the left side of the road corroborates the version given by him as well as by his daughter Patricia/PW2 that they were proceeding on the left side of the road. The fact that the scooter driven by the Accused came to fall on the left side of the road also shows that it is the Accused who came on the left side i.e. wrong side and 5 gave a dash and threw down Martin/PW1 and Patricia/PW2 and in doing so it is the Accused who was driving his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner. In other words, the version given by Martin/PW1 as well as Patricia/PW2 have been sufficiently corroborated by panchanama and the sketch of the scene of offence. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Accused submits that the other panch witness by name Caridade who was an independent witness was not examined by the prosecution and who was examined was John Dias who is related to Martin/PW1. Nothing prevented the Accused from examining the said Caridade. The panchanama and the sketch were prepared by Head Constable Kauthankar/PW8, who had no interest in the matter. Learned Counsel further submits that Martin/PW1 was going in that direction, as further on he had to go to his right which was prohibited entry but which was a short cut to go to his house. This aspect has been considered by the Courts below. The learned trial Court has observed that Head Constable Kaunthankar/PW8 had denied that there was no entry road which was a short cut to the house of the said Martin/PW1. The learned first appellate Court has also observed that nothing was brought on record to show that the accident took place at the internal road and only suggestions were put to the prosecution witnesses which were denied by them. Admittedly, the accident took place on a road on which traffic could flow to and fro and it is the Accused who, as stated by the prosecution witnesses, came in a fast speed and dashed against the Kinetic Honda scooter driven by the said Martin/PW1 which was proceeding on its left and in doing so it was the Accused who was rash and negligent in driving his motor cycle. 6 7. Both the Courts below have also come to the conclusion that the vehicle of the Accused was not insured, a fact which was otherwise admitted by the Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The evidence of the witnesses, only because they were related to one another, could not be discarded more so when their evidence was fully corroborated by panchanama and sketch. In my view, the conviction and sentence imposed on the Accused could not be faulted. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD