State vs Santosh Keshav Shet

N.A. Britto, J.—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 304A, I.P.C.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 Vs. State of Punjab, 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.

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) 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 Nathusingh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 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 Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 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 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.

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.

The Apex Court has reiterated in Appabhai and Anr. 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...."

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 Anr. 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 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.

Damages to both the vehicles were proved through Bhalchandra Sawant/PW5, a R.T.O. Inspector.

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 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 304A 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 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.

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 304A and 338, IPC.

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.

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 304A 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 Offenders Act, and in support of his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Paul George Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, .

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).

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 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, 42% of deaths having taken place on the National Highways, and, the increase of accidents was 1.53% more compared to the previous year. In the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1677 the Apex Court reiterated that while considering the quantum of sentence, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence so that high rate of motor accidents is lessened due to callous driving. That the accused has his parents to look after, is the submission which requires to be immediately rejected. Family persons have either children or parents to look after and if that is to be considered a factor to be gone into, then it may not be possible to sentence anyone to imprisonment. In the case of Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , the contention that the accused had a large family to maintain was immediately shot down and it was further observed that when lives are lost and circumstances of driving were harsh no compassion could be shown. In fact, the Apex Court observed that "it scarcely lies in the mouth of the truck driver who plays with fire to complain of burnt fingers". In the case of Prabakharan v. State of Kerala (supra) the Apex Court took note of the fact that punishment provided u/s 304A is grossly inadequate in view of the increasing number of vehicular accidents resulting in death of large number of innocent persons but further observed that it was for the legislature to provide for an appropriate sentence. In the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) the Apex Court observed that while considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. The Apex Court further noted that a professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident, and if an accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being, and if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence, and, lastly, even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle, he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of the automobiles.

As already stated, two precious lives have been lost in this case and they too must be having their own families, and that is exclusively due to the cruel hands of the accused in driving the said truck down the slope in a fast speed when the accused as a prudent driver was required to slow down the speed and in fact slow it to a speed which is otherwise required to go up the slope. That he did not do. The Apex Court has also stated that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm than good to the justice delivery system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats and thus it is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. See Sevaka Perumal, etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, .

This Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 5 of 2009 in the case of Shri Devesh Tukaram Chodanker v. Shri Martin Fernandes by Judgment dated 27-4-2009 had this to say:

The case at hand is almost similar to the case of Rattan Singh (supra) where in the words of the Apex Court, the lethal hand of a truck driver had taken the life of a scooterist � a deadly spectacle so common in our towns and cities. That was almost 3 decades back since then much water has flown down the Zuari. Down the line, things have not improved but on the contrary, the situation has worsened, with more and more deaths taking place on our roads with vehicles becoming larger and more powerful and the road conditions almost remaining the same. The Apex Court refused to interfere with the maximum sentence imposed and that too of two years R.I. Deterrence remains one of the important objects of punishment, as George Saville would put it "men are not hanged for stealing horses but so that horses may not be stolen". Deterrence, as main object of punishment was considered in Rattan''s case and also in Dalbir Singh''s case. Society in general and Courts in particular have now found that the 304-A is inadequate but so far Legislature has not stepped in. At times efforts are made to bring the case u/s 304(ii) Indian Penal Code. Courts are therefore required to step in within the frame work of law and impose maximum punishment, when required. Liberal attitude of imposing meagre sentences or misplaced sympathies either on account of lapse of time of personal inconvenience to the accused or his family have been always been counter productive and against the interests of the society. Courts are required to operate sentence system in a way it reflects the conscience of society. The contention that the accused has a wife and two children to look after, must be immediately brushed aside. The deceased too must be having a family. As observed by the Apex Court "it scarcely lies in the mouth of the truck driver who plays with fire to complain of burnt fingers". The contention that the accused had a large family to maintain was immediately shot down. It was further observed that when life was lost and circumstances of driving were harsh no compassion could be shown. Prabhakaran(supra) has taken note that 82,000 people were killed on roads in the year 2002 and the estimate of people injured is taken 15 to 20 times more than that figure.

Release of the accused on probation is out of question in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab 2004 SCC (Cri) 1183.

As the law stands today, and in order to curb the ever increasing deaths being caused on the roads due to rash and negligent driving of vehicles any sentence to be imposed should be deterrent so that there is some decrease in fatal accidents. There is no dispute that a sentence to be imposed must also be proportionate to the crime committed. Punishment is after all a debt which an offender has to pay to the society for violating its laws and Simone Weeil, a French Philosopher had this to say:

Punishment must be an honour. It must not only wipe out the stigma of the crime, but must be regarded as a supplementary form of education compelling a higher devotion to the public good. The severity of punishment must also be in keeping with the kind of obligation which has been violated, and not with the interests of public security. (Quoted from Quotable Lawyer).

Therefore, considering the facts of the case, in my view, the accused deserves to receive the maximum sentence of two years R.I. u/s 304A IPC and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo S.I. of three months. The accused is also sentenced u/s 338 IPC to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo fifteen days S.I. The sentences imposed herein shall run concurrently. The accused to surrender on or before 1st September, 2009 before the learned J.M.F.C., to undergo the sentence.