1. This appeal raises an issue of safety with regard to a very simple and common place of practice that is being permitted to continue by default and which is responsible for the loss of several valuable lives, as has happened in this case, particularly of young persons. The deceased Afzal along with one Jameel were double riding on a bicycle at Station Road, Khanapur, at about noon on 14-1-1994, It is alleged that a tempo coming from the opposite direction which was being driven by the accused collided with the bicycle as a result of which Afzal sustained head injuries of some seriousness. He was shifted to the local hospital but in view of his condition, he was being moved to the better equipped hospital at Belgaum but unfortunately, he died on the way to the hospital. The Police arrested the accused who was the tempo driver and charged with having committed offences punishable under Section 279 read with Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The defence had contended that Afzal was wearing rubber chappals and that one of them had given way as a result of which he lost control of the cycle and came into the pathway of the tempo resulting in the incident. The Trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences and the present appeal is directed against the order of acquittal.
2. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W. 10-Jameel who admittedly was riding on the carrier of the bicycle clearly indicates that it was the tempo which collided with the bicycle and he submits that it is self-evident from Jameel's evidence that it was the tempo driver who was operating the vehicle rashly and negligently. He relies on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 who claim to be eye-witnesses both of whom blame the tempo driver for the manner in which the vehicle was being driven and state in their evidence that it was the tempo which collided against the bicycle. The submission canvassed was that the panchanama of the scene of offence will give some idea of what precisely took place insofar as the bloodstains start from the centre of the road and secondly, that therewas a distance of about 15 between the tempo and the bicycle and thirdly, the learned State Public Prosecutor submits that the most important aspect of the case is that there were no skid marks which would conclusively establish that the tempo driver did not even apply the brakes. The submission is that all this evidence taken together clearly establishes rashness and negligence and that the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside and the accused deserves to be convicted.
3. On behalf of the respondent, what is pointed out to me is that the evidence of P.W. 10-Jameel who admittedly was on the bicycle along with Afzal in terms indicate that it was he who jumped off the bicycle just before the collision took place. Jameel was uninjured and he admits to the fact that Afzal was riding the bicycle virtually in the centre of the road. What is pointed out is that the various witnesses have admitted that there were very few people on the road and that there was no other traffic and that in this background, the rules of the road require that the cycle should have been ridden close to the left side of the road and not in the centre of the road. This was the first breach of the law. Secondly, what is pointed out to me is that under the provisions of the Traffic Control Act though the original provision prohibited the carriage of more than one person on a bicycle, that by amendments carried out in the years 1986-87 to Section 14 of the Act and the Rules, the State Government virtually granted permission for more than one person to travel on a bicycle. Learned Advocate who represents the respondent-accused submits that the present case is a classic instance of a loss of life that has occurred almost entirely because of such a situation because P.W. 10 admits that he was travelling on the carrier of the bicycle and that he jumped off moments before the collision took place and the submission is that because of this sudden movement by Jameel that Afzal lost control of the bicycle and collided with the tempo.
4. From the material on record, it does appear very clearly that deceased Afzal was riding the bicycle in the centre of the road which is characteristic of the manner in which who wheelers are invariably operated, irrespective of the specific provision of law which requires that they must remain close to the left side of the road particularly since they are slow moving vehicles. The more important aspect of the case that has emerged is that thanks to the indulgence of the State Government in amending of the law and allowing for two persons to travel on a bicycle, that there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that safety is seriously endangered when this happens because irrespective of how strong or competent the rider may be, it is scientifically established that the stability of the bicycle gets seriously endangered if there are two people on it. The first casualty is the fact that the vehicle will not move in a straight line and the second aspect and the more serious one is the fact that due to the instability, there will be a tendency to suddenly veer to the right or to the left as a result of which the vehicle will be moving in a zig-zag fashion which is extremely vulnerable and could cause a collision. What is on record in this case is a further illustration of the consequences of any unpredictable movements by the passengers on the bicycle because Jameel states that be jumped off and this particularaction on his part whereby he jumped off to the left of the bicycle would have had the direct result of its violently moving towards the right without any indication to the rest of the traffic. The result was that the bicycle veered into the path of the oncoming tempo and since this happened so suddenly, it resulted in a head-on collision with fatal consequences.
5. The number of accidents involving two wheelers in the State has been steadily increasing at the rate of about 11% per year, most of them being fatal, 870 deaths having taken place in the last two years. The Traffic Control Department of the State Government has been cheerfully watching the fun, happy that the population problem is automatically taking care of itself, which is absolutely unpardonable. This Court has repeatedly issued directions to the Traffic Control Department to enforce the lane system and stop zig-zagging on the roads but not even a little finger has been lifted. The Home Minister shall personally ensure that immediate steps are taken to widely publicise that heavy penalties will be imposed on each and every defaulter.
6. I have carefully examined the evidence in this case and I need to record that before a conviction can be sustained, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The speed at which the vehicle was being driven has not been indicated by any of the witnesses nor from any of the circumstances. The manner in which the vehicle was being driven particularly the question as to what was the exact position of the vehicle when the collision took place has not been conclusively established and in the absence of the prosecution proving the essential ingredients that constitute rashness and negligence, it would not be possible to record a conviction. On the other hand, this is a case in which the evidence indicates not only rashness and negligence but utter recklessness on the part of the deceased concerned and it is extremely sad, that as a result of this he has lost his life.
7. There are certain well-defined safety norms that apply to traffic and to vehicles all over the world and it is most distressing to note from the amendments that were pointed out to me, that provision has been made for two persons to travel on a bicycle or to legalise double riding. It is not a question of convenience. The real issue is the overriding aspect of safety and the present case is a classic illustration of how these amendments which were carried out by the State Government are the direct cause for the death of Afzal. It is necessary that the Government ensures that no compromises are made when it comes to the question of safety and consequently, the Government would be well-advised to reconsider the position and to revoke the amendments in question. One needs to take note of the fact that bicycles are used by a large number of people but more importantly that they are commonly used by a large number of children particularly school children and young persons and these amendments would only facilitate the bicycle riders to carry an additional person which, having regard to the traffic conditions that exist is nothing short of a suicidal act. The laws are required to be oriented towards a situation whereby they contribute to safety and welfare and not to facilitate people killing and maiming themselves.
8. On a total review of the record of this case, it will have to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of rashness and negligence and that consequently, the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused by the Trial Court stands confirmed. The appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed.
9. Having regard to the observations made by this Court concerning the aspects of safety in the case of persons riding bicycles, the Registrar General is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Home Minister and Transport Minister of the State in the hope that the Departments will take cognisance of what has been pointed out and resort to immediate corrective action.