Firoz Mohammed Ali Aga vs State of Goa, Through learned P. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(Bom) 781

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
U.V. BAKRE, J.
Firoz Mohammed Ali Aga
Versus
State of Goa, Through learned P.P.
Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 2014
Decided on: 28-03-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Prem Pal Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Milena Gomes Pinto, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 337 - Cr PC, 1973, Section 357 - Conviction and sentence for offence of rash and negligent driving. - Punishment of imprisonment for a period of 26 days already undergone by accused, convicted and sentenced under Section 279, 337, IPC would be adequate punishment. - It is pertinent to note that the Assistant Public Prosecutor had submitted before the Trial Magistrate that since the offences committed by the accused had resulted in injuries to several people, they should be adequately compensated. However, the Trial Magistrate does not appear to have taken note of the said submission made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Section 357 (3) of Cr PC lays down that when a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. Insofar as the fine amount of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) is concerned, the accused has already deposited the same in the Court. The counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, upon instructions from the accused, submitted that the said fine of Rs. 2,500/- be considered as compensation and the accused would pay further compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees. Fifty Thousand only) to the injured persons. It is seen that the Appellate Court had pronounced the judgment on 7.1.2013 on which date itself, the accused had surrendered before the Trial Magistrate and he was committed to Sub-Jail Sada, Vasco to undergo the sentence. After the accused filed the present appeal, he was released on bail on 1.2.2013. Thus, the accused has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 26 days and has understood seriousness of committing offence of rash and negligent driving. In Court’s considered view, punishment of imprisonment already undergone by him coupled with a direction that the amount of fine of Rs. 2,500/- will be considered as part compensation and direction to accused to pay further compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to be paid to the injured persons, should be adequate punishment for the accused person.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337 and 338 - Conviction for rash and negligent driving. - Where evidence of witnesses proved that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of ’Minibus’ by accused which caused grievous and simple injuries to passengers therefore conviction of accused proper. - It was found that the accident took place because the brakes had failed suddenly and therefore it was held that it could be said that the accused was driving the jeep rashly and negligently. The above judgment is not applicable to the present case since in the present case as per the report of the PW 11, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the brakes were in order and were in working condition and there was no mechanical defect. The tyre had not burst for the mini bus to suddenly go off the road and fall into the nullah.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This Revision Application has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 07/01/2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao (Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2011 by which the judgment and sentence dated 26th/29th August, 2011 delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama (Trial Magistrate) in Criminal Case No. 84/S/2010/D has been confirmed and the present petitioner, who was the accused in the said case, has been directed to surrender and suffer the imprisonment imposed against him and to pay the fine as ordered or to suffer further imprisonment in default.

3. The Vasco Police had filed charge sheet against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), alleging that on 05/03/2010 at 11.50 hours near Vaddem Bridge, opposite Goa Shipyard Ltd., the accused being the driver of Mini Bus bearing registration no. GA-02/T-4897, drove the same in rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Chicalim to Vasco and when reached near Vaddem Bridge, on descending road opposite to Goa Shipyard Limited, went off the road and the Mini Bus fell into the nullah, thereby causing grievous injuries to some passengers and simple injuries to other passengers. The said charge sheet was registered as Criminal Case No. 84/S/2010/D.

4. Charge was framed and explained to the accused by the Trial Magistrate to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined altogether 18 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) came to be recorded. The case of the accused was that the accident occurred as tyre of the vehicle got punctured. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence.

5. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Magistrate found that the ocular evidence adduced by PW1 Anita Cunha, PW3 Saju Krishna Chopdekar, PW5 Ramani Dara, PW7 Shailaja Vivek and PW16 Smita Sawant established that the Mini Bus was driven at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner on a public way. The Trial Magistrate further held that PW5 and PW6 sustained grievous injuries in the form of fracture whereas other witnesses sustained simple injuries, as a result of the accident caused by the accused. The accused was therefore held guilty and convicted of the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C.. In respect of Section 279 of I.PC., he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. In respect of Section 337 of I.P.C., the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days and lastly for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupee One Thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 30 days. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence delivered by the learned Trial Magistrate, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2011. By impugned Judgment and Order dated 07/01/2013, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and sentence of the Trial Magistrate. The accused has filed the present Revision Application against the said judgment.

7. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, while assailing the impugned Judgment, submitted that the only independent witness namely PW1 Anita Cunha who was n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(Bom) 781

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa U.V. BAKRE, J.Firoz Mohammed Ali Aga Versus State of Goa, Through learned P.P. Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 2014 Decided on: 28-03-2014

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
U.V. BAKRE, J.
Firoz Mohammed Ali Aga
Versus
State of Goa, Through learned P.P.
Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 2014
Decided on: 28-03-2014