S N HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant, who was a Bus Driver, had been charged before the leaned Munsif Magistrate, Alampur, for offences under sections 304A, 338 and 337-IPC, but was acquitted. The State Government appealed against the acquittal to the High Court and the High Court has convicted him under all those sections and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 304A, IPC and made the other sentences to run concurrently with the same. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) The appellant was the Driver of a R. T. C. Bus APZ 1672 and was driving the vehicle on 1-1-1966 from Kurnool to Vanaparthy. The bus left Kurnool at about 6.15 A.M. and reached Railway level crossing gate between Alampur Road Station and Monopad Railway Station at about 6.30 or 7.00 A.M. The level crossing is in charge of a gateman and it is the duty of the gateman to close the gate when a train is expected to pass by. It is an admitted fact that at the time when the appellant with his bus reached the level crossing the gate was open. The appellant passed through the gate and crossed the meter gauge track when suddenly a Goods train dashed against the bus on the rear side with the result that the bus was thrown off causing serious injuries to the passengers. There were about 43 passengers in the bus. Out of these, one died on the spot, three died later in the Hospital and about 21 other passengers received more or less severe injuries. The charge against the appellant was that he was rash or negligent in crossing the railway track when a Goods train was about to pass the gate.

(3.) The appellant's defence was that he was neither rash nor negligent and the accident was unavoidable. He did not realize at all that a Goods train was passing at the time and since the gate was open he crossed the railway crossing absolutely oblivious of the fact that a train was approaching. The learned Trial Magistrate accepted the defence but the High Court was pleased to hold that the appellant was both rash and negligent.