The duty of care expected from a driver, the significance of witness testimony, and the importance of upholding traffic laws for road safety.

This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C.

2. The petitioner faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 and a sentence of S.I. for three months and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution alleged that on 13.7.1997 at about 9.15 p.m. the petitioner drove a bus/stage carriage from south towards north along the road from Ramanattukara to Kozhikode and in the process of attempting to overtake another stationary vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at an excessive speed, strayed over to the wrong side of the road and knocked down an autorikshaw, in which PWs 1 and 3 to 6 were travelling. The prosecution alleged that the accident occurred solely on account of rashness and negligence of the petitioner.

4. Investigation commenced with Ext.P1 F.I. statement lodged by PW1 and culminated with the final report submitted by PW13. The accused denied the offences alleged against him and thereupon the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 13 and proved Exts.P1 to P12. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that he was driving the vehicle. But according to him, the boot was on the other leg, i.e. it was because of the negligent driving of the driver of the autorikshaw that the accident had occurred. No defence evidence was adduced by him.

5. The courts below, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, concurrently came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.

6. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contention that the courts below erred in accepting and acting upon the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 6. In the circumstances of the case, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 6 should not have been accepted and acted upon, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The crucial evidence is that of PWs. 1 to 6, PW13, Ext.P1 F.I. statement and Ext.P2 scene mahazar.

8. Negligence is the breach of the duty to take care, which a reasonably prudent person is expected to and rashness is the gross disregard of the known consequences of one's indiscreet act. The road at the scene of the crime lies straight with clear visibility. The tarred road has a width of 7.05 metres. There are road margins on either side. The spot of occurrence is located at a distance of 1.30 metres west of the eastern kerb. This location of the spot of incident by PW13 in Ext.P2 scene mahazar with the help of the identification by PW2 is not seen seriously challenged at all. The tarred road has a width of 7.05 metres and the imaginary mid line must run at a distance of 3.525 metres from either kerb. The fundamental rule of the road in India is that the vehicles must keep left. The left half of the road is reserved for onward traffic. Any person who strays over to his right half of the road must exercise great amount of care and caution. He should not obstruct the flow of vehicle in the opposite direction. The degree of care expected from a driver when attempting to overtake another vehicle and in that process going over to the zone of the road reserved for traffic in the opposite direction is great. That fact cannot be ignored while appreciating the facts in this case.

9. PWs. 1 and 3 to 6 are passengers in the autorikshaw. PW2 is an eye witness/pedestrian, an autorikshaw driver himself, who had allegedly witnessed the incident. Their evidence clearly shows that the petitioner was engaged in the attempt of overtaking another stationary vehicle. The location of the spot of impact which I have a