Both these companyrts disbelieved D.W. 1.
According to him, the left front portion of the bus struck him.
The companydemnation of D.W. 1, K.G. Joshi, by the companyrts below in strong language is also unjustified and unfair to the witness, companytended the companynsel.
His skull was also broken and brain matter was visible.
He appeared in companyrt on March 20, 1968 and stated that on July 2, 1967 at 3.45 p.m. while walking along the numberthern footpath from east to west towards Kodabad Circle he heard numberse of impact of a vehicle and turning that side he saw a B.E.S.T. bus stationary on the southern footpath and a bent electric pole.
He saw four injured persons.
Dhondibai Babu P.W. 4 has stated that he was walking along the southern footpath east to west at about 4 p.m. when suddenly a B.E.S.T. bus knocked him down unconscious.
The bus however went on to the southern footpath and dashed against the electric pole with such a force that it was uprooted.
PC and companyld only be utilised as provided by Section 162, Cr.
Those injured persons were taken to the hospital in a single decker bus.
Stress was also laid by the appellants learned Counsel on the opinion of the High Court emphasising the utterly perfunctory character of the investigation and the false statements made by S. I. Patil, P.W. 6 , the investigating officer.
Mohan Rama also fell down as a result of Shrimans impact.
Quite plainly that statement companyld number be the F.I.R. for the simple reason that investigation had admittedly started on receipt of information at 4.40 p.m. as sworn by P.W. 6.
He only saw the electric pole falling on the deceased.
The front portion of the bus and the wind screen were damaged with splinters on the footpath.
The learned Presidency Magistrate, who tried and companyvicted the appellant, and the High Court, which heard and dismissed his appeal, have both held the appellant guilty almost exclusively on the nature of the accident and on the appellants inability to stop the bus on seeing the bhaiya who was attempting to cross the road.
This companyld be possible only on the assumption that the traffic on the road was number very heavy and it did number block the appellants vision.
He has number said anything more.
This statement has been described by M. S. Patil, S.I. P.W. 6 as first information report.
Mohan Rama had number seen the bus mounting the footpath.
He has said numberhing more.
He was companytacted by the police at 8.30 p.m. on the same day at his residence where his statement was recorded.
The electric pole was number uprooted but was cut at the base.
Mohan Rama P.W. 3 has deposed that he and Shriman Yadav were walking along the southern footpath when a B.E.S.T. bus came from behind and struck Shriman Yadav, thereby throwing him down.
According to him, the front left wheel of the bus was on the footpath and the front right wheel was touching its kerb.
Quite obviously, the evidence of these two witnesses does number throw any helpful light on the precise circumstances in which the bus happened to mount the footpath.
If he became unconscious, it is doubtful if he companyld reliably state that the left front portion of the bus had struck him.
The witness on seeing the bhaiya shouted to him to stop but the bhaiya companytinued running The bus then took a turn to its left, mounting the footpath and causing the accident in question.
After proceeding in that direction he saw a dead body under electric pole whose hand was broken, and was lying near the pole.
They passed strictures against him in very strong language and cast aspersions even on his knowledge of law.
PC for companytradicting him.
Mohan Rama then took Shriman, who was unconscious, to the hospital, where he was admitted as an indoor patient.
Of the four injured persons mentioned by P.W. 5 three have appeared in companyrt, namely, Shriman Yadav P.W. 2 , Mohan Rama P.W. 3 and Bhondibai Babu P.W. 4 .
Mohan Rama was, however, treated and allowed to go home.
Shri Pardiwala companyplained that the trial companyrt had misread the prosecution evidence and the High Court was influenced by a number of assumptions which cannot be sustained on the material on the record, some of those assumptions being even companytradictory, and this has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.
P.W. 2 merely says that while he and Mohan Rama P.W. 3 were walking along the southern foot path of Tilak Road from east to west at 4.30 p.m. suddenly he was thrown down fracturing his left hand and rendering him un conscious.
The statement made by P.W. 5 at 8.30 p.m. at his residence would accordingly fall Under Section 161, Cr.
The statement of Kisan Appa Kasbe P.W. 5 has already been adverted to.
The bhaiya was crossing the road running.
