1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2010 Shri Vassudev Fulchand Yadav, Son of Fulchand Yadav, R/o. House No.52, Near Chowgule Colony, Pale, Bicholim, Goa. And presently lodged at Sub-jail, Vasco. …. Petitioner V/s STATE Represented by Public Prosecutor, Panaji-Goa. …. Respondent Mr. R. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 28th JUNE, 2010. JUDGMENT : Heard Shri R. Naik, on behalf of the petitioner and Shri C.A. Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. In this revision petition, the petitioner/accused has assailed the judgment dated 18/01/2010 of the learned Sessions Judge, upholding the judgment dated 3/03/2009 of the learned JMFC, convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 279, 304-A IPC. 2. The deceased was a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by the accused bearing No.GA-04-A-5273. He was proceeding from Velguem 2 to Pale on 4/12/2006 at about 12.45 hrs. when he met with an accident in which the deceased by name Nagesh Patkar died on the spot. The accused was charged under Section 279, 304-A, IPC. In the trial of the accused, prosecution examined 6 witnesses including PW3 the driver of the bus which was also going in the same direction and PW2 the driver of the truck which was coming in the opposite direction. It appears that the driver of the truck i.e. PW2 did try to save the accident and applied breaks and yet the motorcycle driven by the accused dashed on the front right portion of the truck driven by him. In the course of the trial, it was suggested to PW3, the driver of the bus, whom the accused was trying to overtake, that the said driver had signaled by hand to overtake the bus, a suggestion which he denied. Likewise, it was suggested to PW2 the truck driver that he was in a great speed, a suggestion which he too denied. 3. The evidence on record, particularly that of PW3, the driver of the bus and PW2, the driver of the truck, clearly suggest that it is the accused who was trying to overtake the said bus which was going up the slope and in that process went and dashed against the truck which was coming down the slope. If the truck was coming down the slope, it is but obvious that the truck would be carried to some distance even after application of breaks. The fact that the accused went towards right side of the road and dashed against the front right of the truck clearly shows 3 that the accused, in the process of overtaking the said bus, went and dashed against the said truck. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submits that since the accused was found almost in the middle of the road and the truck itself had moved about 10 meters after application of breaks suggests that there was an error of judgment on the part of the accused. The evidence of PW2, the truck driver, and PW3 the bus driver, clearly suggest that it is the accused who in the process of overtaking the said bus went towards the oncoming truck and dashed against it. Whether there was a curve further towards Palem or not the fact remains that it is the accused who ought to have taken greater care in ensuring that there was no other vehicle coming on his side of the road before he began to overtake the bus. The fact that the accused tried to overtake the bus driven by PW3, without taking care to see the truck driven by PW2 coming in opposite direction shows that the accused was driving rashly. 4. Considering the facts of the case, the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below as well as the sentence imposed upon the accused cannot be faulted. I find there is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-