Muthusamy vs State, by Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, Southern Range

David Annoussamy, J.—This is a revision against conviction and sentence. The revision petitioner is a bus driver. While driving his vehicle on

29th April, 1983, at about 10.30 p.m. in Mount Road, Madras, he hit four persons, one mother and three children. The mother died on the spot,

two children died later in the hospital and another child survived with simple injuries. The bus was stopped ten meters away from the place of

impact. The trial court found the accused guilty under Ss. 304A (three counts) and S. 337, I.P.C., and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The

appellate Court set aside the conviction under S. 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and confirmed the convictions under Ss. 304A (three

counts) and 337, I.P.C.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner very strenuously contended that there was neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the

driver-revision petitioner herein so as to convict him for offences punishable under S. 304A (three counts) and S. 337, I.P.C. He argued that the

vehicle being loaded and having stopped ten meters away from the place of impact should have run only at 25 kilometers per hour as per the

indications found under Rule 307(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1940. He would urge that the accused drove the vehicle at a speed

inferior to the maximum speed permitted by the Rules in Madras which is 45 kilometers per hour. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

would further add that the driver would have applied brake only at the time of impact, since as per the case of the revision petitioner the victims

crossed the road all of a sudden and he did not see them earlier, especially, because there was another lorry with head lights on coming in the

opposite direction. It is a fact that the mother and children crossed the road at a place which was not earmarked for pedestrian crossing.

Nevertheless, even causing death of a person in that place would amount to an offence if the driving is found to be rash and negligent. As per S.

116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver should have regard to all the circumstances of the case. while regulating his speed, such circumstances

being the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle h driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at that time or which might

reasonably be expected to be in that place, etc. One of the important circumstances put forth by the accused himself is that there was another

vehicle coming in the opposite direction on dazzling the driver and practically blinding him with light. Under those circumstances, by driving at 25

kilometers per hour he certainly committed a rash and negligent act and therefore there is no doubt that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under

S. 304 . As far as the sentence is concerned, it is submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1983, that the petitioner has already

undergone one week of imprisonment, and that it will not be just and proper to send him back to prison after such a long space of time. I find that

a fine could meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the sentences imposed in respect of both the offences are modified as follows:- Imprisonment for the period already undergone and

a fine of Rs. 2,000 for both the offences payable within two months from the date of intimation of this order by the trial court, failing which he shall

undergo six months simple imprisonment. Barring this modification in sentences, the revision is dismissed.