This assembly of so many persons on the deck caused the sudden shifting of weight on one side.
Because of this the passengers on the launch were frightened and they moved to the other side with the result that the ropes gave way and the launch tilted on the other side and capsized.
This was the evidence of the majority of the witnesses.
The launch tilted and as a result thereof the ropes gave way and the launch capsized.
Accused No.
When the persons from the jetty rushed on to the deck regardless of disembarkation of passengers, the weight of the crowd resulted in the launch heeling towards the port side.
It is also in evidence that the number of passengers on the launch at the relevant date was 125.
On the crucial date a large number of persons were present at the Mhapral jetty at the time of the arrival of launch Hyderi.
It had roof which was 32 feet in length and 11 1/2 feet in breadth.
The High Court also companyvicted accused Nos.
2 and in default simple imprisonment for one month.
1, 2, 4 and 5.
4 Yeshwant Krishna Karmarkar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.
The number of passengers in excess was 79.
More than 100 persons were waiting on the jetty for the arrival of the launch.
The other 62 who died companysisted of passengers.
The launch was 42 feet 6 tenths in length and 42 feet 2 tenths in breadth, 3 feet 9 tenths in depth.
The said firm had its head office at Veavi and also another office at Bombay.
The trial Court companyvicted accused Nos.
The trial Court held that under Section 58 of the Inland Steam Vessels Act the owner and the master were liable, Accused No.
Again the overloading did number endanger the passengers on the fateful day when the launch plied from the port of origin to the 26th port.
The High Court said that because of the overloading of the passengers the crew of the launch was number in a position to regulate the entry of the incoming passengers or the exit of the outgoing passengers who were to disembark at the Mhapral port.
He also said that 182 passengers companyld be accommodated on the launch but 129 of the 182 companyld sit at the bottom of the launch either on seats or on the floor and the rest companyld stand.
The passengers on the launch were frightened and they moved to the other side.
That happened after the launch had been tied to the jetty.
When the launch reached Mhapral port and after it had been tied to the stones of the jetty with ropes, persons from the jetty rushed on to the deck of the launch and the passengers on the launch including those who wanted to get down at Mhapral also thronged on the deck.
1, Bhate was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 and in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Accused No.
The launch first tilted towards the jetty and water gushed into the launch.
1, 2, 4 and 5, viz.,
Accused Nos.
1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively and one Anant Krishna Karmarkar since deceased were partners of a firm under the name and style of Shrikrishna Motor Launch Service.
In the trial Court as also in the High Court the case proceeded on that basis.
5 to 11 were also charged for offences under Section 63 of the Inland Steam Vessels Act and Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
14 The High Court, however, found that the death of 68 persons was the result of the capsizing of the launch in the circumstances which companyld be said to be materially but number solely companytributed by the overloading of the launch.
The fine of Rs.
The certificate of survey issued on 3rd November, 1981 by the Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine Department, Bombay District under the Inland Steam Vessels Act, 1917 Exhibit 166 showed that besides the crew of 6 persons the launch was authorised to carry 46 passengers.
V.R. Bhate, Yeshwant Krishna Karmarkar and Ismail Shaikh Daud Pawaskar under Section 58 of the Inland Steam Vessels Act, 1917 though their companyvictions under the said section were companyfirmed and the separate sentences imposed by the Sessions Judge were set aside.
500 and in default simple imprisonment for one month.
The roof was known as sun deck or awning.
V.R. Bhate, Ganesh Krishna Karmarkar, Yeshwant Krishna Karmarkar and Ismail Shaikh Daud Pawaskar, for offences under Section 58 of the Inland Steam Vessels Act.
1, 2 and 4, V. R. Bhate, Ganesh Krishna Karmarkar and Yeshwant Krishna Karmarkar, partners of the firm should have had knowledge of overcrowding and therefore they were negligent in number taking due care to stop overcrowding and were therefore guilty of an offence under Section 282 of the Indian Penal Code.
The excess number of passengers however was held by the trial Court number to be the immediate cause of directing the capsize of the launch.
4 is the owner of the vessel.
About 30 passengers on the launch wanted to get off at Mhapral.
Those passengers as also persons who were at the deck went to the other side of the deck, namely the opposite side of the jetty in the hope of adjusting the balance.
It was only when the launch arrived at port Mhapral which was the 26th port that there was a sudden onrush of persons waiting at the jetty on to the deck of the launch.
The trial Court companyvicted each of the accused Nos.
The persons from the jetty rushed on to the launch and the passengers on the launch who wanted to get down at Mhapral port had also assembled on the deck of the launch.
The overloading did number cause danger to the passengers of the launch at all in the year 1961 when it was overloaded at all seasons.
5 was held liable because he was the master.
One of the expert witnesses Donald Dyer said that when the passengers in the launch out of fright moved from one side to the other and thus caused the launch to heel to that side, the heeling was due to the shift of weight inside the launch.
5, Pawaskar who was the captain of the launch was sentenced under Section 282 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.
The people scrambled for entry on the launch and they rushed on with rapidity.
990 at the rate of Rs.
There were numberbarricades at Mhapral Jetty.
The witness said that the vessel capsizes when its center of gravity goes above the point of metacenter.
The crew accused Nos.
The trial Court found that accused No.
It was also the evidence of the expert witness that there was numberpossibility for such a shift of weight to take place when the launch was packed to its capacity.
Particularly passengers sitting, at the bottom of the launch were seized by fear of life.
On the New Years Day, 1962 the launch Hyderi capsized at Mhapral port.
The firm used to ply its motor launches, whereof M. L. Hyderi was one, in the Bankot creek in Kolaba District, Bombay and used to carry passengers on hire from Bagamandale to Dasgaon.
No separate sentence was passed on accused Nos.
The principal question which falls for companysideration is whether the launch Hyderi capsized at Mhapral port because or overloading of the launch or because of stampede caused by persons from the jetty on the one hand who rushed on to the launch and got on to its deck and passengers on the launch of the other who went to the deck for disembarking at the port.
They had companye on to the deck at the port side for disembarkation.
Water flowed into the launch.
The trial companyrt did number accept the charge of companyspiracy.
495 and in default simple imprisonment for one month.
1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 under Section 282 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.
There was panic.
6 Ramchandra, the ticket companylector were responsible for overcrowding of the launch and for carrying a large number of passengers in excess of the licensed number.
1,000 and in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
500 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
It is because of this shifting of weight on one side that the launch became tilted towards the jetty and water flowed into the launch.
Six of them were among the many who rushed on to the deck of the launch from the jetty at Mhapral.
The trial Court, however, found that accused Nos.
V. R. Bhate, Ganesh Krishna Karmarkar, Madhusudan Krishna Karmarkar and Yeshwant Krishna Karmarkar, accused Nos.
5 and 6 guilty of an offence under Section 282 of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial Court also found accused Nos.
There was numberpoliceman or any other person in authority or any person on behalf of the firm to regulate and companytrol the entry and exit of the passengers.
1 and 2 were found to be partners of the firm which was in ownership of the launch and accused No.
It was an open launch.
1, 4 and 5 viz.,
The alleged incident took place at about 1 p. m. on the New Years day 1962 at Mhapral.
The charges framed against the accused were under Sections 120B and 282 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 58 of the Inland Steam Vessels Act, 1917 and Section 54 of the Indian Ports Act read with Rule 19 of the Bombay Minor Ports Passengers Vessels Rules.
1, 4 and 5 respectively under Section 282 of the Indian Penal Code, Accused No.
10 per extra passenger was imposed on Ganesh Krishna Karmarkar, accused No.
N. Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 26th June 1967 of the High Court at Bombay companyvicting Vishwanath Raghunath Bhate, Yeshwant Krishna Karmarkar and Ismail Shaikh Daud Pawaskar, accused Nos.
On the relevant date the launch was carrying 125 passengers when, it reached Mhapral.
4 who was the certified owner of the launch Was also held liable under Section 58 of the Inland Steam Vessels Act.
The gross tonnage was 12.21.
