The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the evidence and circumstances to prove the commission of offences under S.279 and 337 IPC, related to rash and negligent driving.

S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. Respondent was convicted by the Magistrate for offences punishable under S.279 and 337 I. P. C, but sentenced only under S.279 with fine of Rs. 500/-. In appeal the Chief Judicial Magistrate reversed the conviction and acquitted the respondent. State has come up in appeal.

2. Respondent was the driver of K. S. R. T. C. bus K. L. X. 3267 which went on a trial run after repairs in the workshop on 26-6-1985 at 3 PM from north to south through the road in front of the St. Theresa's College at Ernakulam. The case of the prosecution is that he drove the bus in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to pedestrians and vehicular traffic and. caused it to hit against PW. 7 who was walking in the same direction through the western side of the road and knocked him down causing injuries to him. The bus also hit against a tree causing injuries to PWs. 1, 2 and 8 who were travelling in the bus. These consequences are said to be the result of the rashness and negligence with which the respondent overtook a bus parked on the eastern side for alighting passengers overlooking a car coming from the opposite direction and pedestrians on the road. The defence was that the accident was beyond his control on account of brake failure.

3. PWs. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 are the occurrence witnesses and PW. 3 is the A.M.V.I who inspected the bus and gave Ext. P1 report. PW. 7 is the pedestrian who was knocked down and PWs 1, 2 and 8 are the colleagues and subordinates of the respondent who were 'travelling in the bus and were injured, PW. 4 is a Police Constable who was on duty at the accident spot.

4. The version given by the respondent when questioned under S.313 is that a private bus was parked for alighting passengers and cars were coming from both directions. There was a big crowd of pedestrians also in the road. On seeing this sight he applied brake, but the brake J pedal completely went down. Seeing no other go, he swerved the bus and caused it to stop by hitting against a tree.

5. PWs. 1 and 2 turned hostile. Even though brake failure was not mentioned by them when questioned during investigation, they supported the respondent in that respect also in the box. They pleaded ignorance of the bus knocking down PW. 7 even though that was the first tragedy which happened and he was also admitted in the hospital along with PWs. 1 and 2. These two witnesses had no basis to say that there was brake failure. Anyhow from the evidence of PW. 1 it is seen that the respondent in fact overtook the parking bus and swerved the bus to avoid collusion 2 with the car coming from the opposite side at a time when on account of the parking of the bus there was only hardly space for one vehicle to go. According to PW. 1 this fact and the brake failure were the reasons which caused the bus to be swerved to the west and it hit against a tree. PW. 2 did not admit the fact of a car coming from the opposite direction. Anyhow he also admitted the parking of a bus on the eastern side near the scene and the respondent suddenly swerving the bus to the west. This could only be in the process of overtaking the parked bus.

6. PW. 8 categorically admitted that the respondent overtook 0 a parked bus in the bus stop at a time when a car was coming from the opposite direction and at once the respondent suddenly swerved the bus to the west. This overtaking was not only when a car was coming from the opposite direction, but also when as admitted by PWs. 1 and 2 there was only hardly space for a vehicle to pass and a crowd of pedestrians were on the road. It was in this attempt that the bus knocked down PW. 7 and then hit against a tree. Anyhow, not only PWs. 1 and 2, but PW. 8 also refused to admit that PW. 7 was knocked down or injured. Even though PWs. 1 and 2 turned hostile and PWs. 1, 2 and 8 attempted to help the respondent on account of their interest in him (PWs 1 and 2 are subordinates and PW. 8 is a colle