Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Magistrates Court of Fiji

State v Prasad [2006] FJMC 29; Traffic Case No 1505 of 2005 (16 November 2006)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Traffic Case No. 1505 of 2005

STATE

V

RAJENDRA PRASAD

Before Ajmal Gulab Khan Esq
Resident Magistrate

Date of Hearing: 31/10/06
Date of Judgment: 16/11/06

Prosecution: Sgt. Lomani
Defence: Mr Sharma

JUDGMENT

The accused has been charged for aggravated Dangerous Driving Contrary to Section 97 and 114 of the Land Transport Act.

Both parties have agreed to facts and they are as follows:

1. The defendant drove bus IBL937 on 21st May 2004 on Ratu Mara Road, Nabua.
   
2. The bus had passengers.
   
3. It went out of control and off the road.
   
4. Passengers suffered injuries as a result of the accident.
   

The only issue before Court is whether the bus went out of control due to a mechanical defect or due to the dangerous manner of driving of the accused?

Most passengers' statements say there was a loud noise heard inside the bus. It came from somewhere outside most likely from underneath the bus. Soon after the noise, the bus went out of control and it ended up off the road. The crucial witness was the Land Transport vehicle inspector who gave evidence for the Prosecution. He examined the vehicle after accident around 9pm at night. He was aided by a torch.

He found the vehicle extensively damaged. He was unable to examine most parts.

In his report he wrote "there was no mechanical fault found which may have caused the accident." However in court, he agreed that he was unable to examine the vehicle to confirm above. He also agreed he had no knowledge of the witness statements as to the ‘bang’ before the bus went out of control.

He stated one of the reasons for the bang which would make the bus go out of control could be a breaking of suspension. He said the suspension and spring and shackle in the bus were damaged.

He was the only expert witness who gave evidence. I am not satisfied that it could be said beyond reasonable doubt that the manner of driving was dangerous in view of the likely explanation and other reasons advanced by the expert witness.

It could be the mechanical failure of breaking of suspension which led the bus to become uncontrollable and go out of road.

There being no further evidence of the manner of driving of the accused, it could not be said it was the fault of the driver.

It is a likely cause that the bus had the accident and the injuries followed as a result of defect in bus whilst being driven.

I find the accused not guilty and acquit him.

Dated this 16th day of November 2006.

Ajmal Gulab Khan
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE