IN THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
FIJI ISLANDS
Traffic Case No: 181 of 2014

State

V

Vijay Kumar

For Prosecution: PC Raymond (Police Prosecution)
Accused: Present – Ms Prakash (Legal Aid) 

JUDGMENT

Introduction

The accused in this case is charged with Dangerous Driving, contrary to Section 98 (1) and 114 of The Land Transport Act 35 of 1998.

The particulars of the offence is that: "Vijay Kumar on the 14th day of June 2013 at Samabula in the Central Division drove a motor vehicle registration number Nair 11 on Ratu Mara Road in a manner which was dangerous to the public having regards to all the circumstances of the case."

The Law and The elements of the offence 
Dangerous Driving is defined by s. 98 (1) of the Land Transport Act. 

Dangerous Driving is defined by s. 98 (1) of the Land Transport Act as driving  "on a public street recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is  dangerous  to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the public street and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be on the public street".

 In Lasike v State, Fiji Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No HAA 58 of 2002 (13th September, 2002) the Court of Appeal defined dangerous driving  as follows:

"Dangerous driving is the causing of a  dangerous  situation by a manner of  driving  which falls below the standard expected of a prudent driver."

The elements of Dangerous Driving that the prosecution is required to prove beyond the reasonable doubts is: 

i.	That accused person, 
ii.	Drove a motor vehicle on a public street, 
iii.	Recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is  dangerous  to the public, 

The Defence agreed in Court that he did not dispute the date, identification, time or that the accused person drove Nair 11 on the day. The single most important issue for the Court to determine in this case is whether the accused drove dangerously or not. 

The Evidences of the Witnesses
The Prosecution called 3 witnesses. PW- 1 – Punam Priyanka Maharaj, PW-2 – Taniela Tamani Qalobula and PW-3 – Constable Suliano Vasutoga. 

At the close of the prosecution case, this Court ruled a case to answer. The accused was put to his defence and the options available to him were explained to him. The accused chose to give sworn evidence. The accused did not call any other witnesses. 

 Analysis of the Evidence in Relation to the Law
This Court has noted the evidence of all the witnesses. The Court has also scrutinized the rough sketch of the scene tendered by the Prosecution. 

From the agreed facts this Court finds that there is no dispute in this case as to the following elements of the offence; the identification of the accused, the date and time of the offence and that the accused drove Nair 11. The only issue for this Court to determine is whether the accused drove dangerously or not. 

The 2nd prosecution witness, Taniela was an independent witness. He was at the scene of the accident on the date of the alleged offence. His evidence in Court was that he saw that the accused did not stop his bus at the bus stop. The accused was in the middle lane going towards Nausori. There was no space for accused to park. Passengers were getting into the bus and the bus was moving. It had not stopped. The complainant got smashed by the accused's bus. There was no space for the accused to pick passengers there . The accused was picking along the road. In cross-examination he stated that passengers were getting onto the bus even when it was not at the bus stop. They were getting onto the bus even as the bus was moving. He told the Court the girl got injured because of the moving bus. It was dangerous to get into the moving bus. 

The complainant who is 14 years old told the Court that the bus was moving a bit. 2 people went in and when she put her feet, the driver put the gear and she fell down. In cross-examination she agreed that it was not safe to get onto the moving bus. She also agreed that she could be little bit at fault. 

The accused's evidence was that 2 passengers got in as he was going into park. Passengers shouted he stopped the bus and saw the complainant in between his bus. In cross-examination the accused told the court that he was trying to park when 2 passengers jumped in and thats the reason he did not stop. 

From the evidence before it this Court notes that on certain questions like why he did not stop when he saw the passengers getting in, the accused was evasive. He was not answering the questions. The accused according this Court created dangerous situation when he continued to move the bus when the passengers were boarding the bus. The accused, as the driver of the bus was in control of the bus. When he saw the passengers coming into the bus, even if was not fully onto the bus bay, he should not have kept the bus moving. Children were getting in. He did not exercise caution. By moving the bus he created a dangerous situation which caused the complainant to be crushed under his bus. This Court is satisfied that the accused drove dangerously and caused the accident. For the above-mentioned reasons this court is satisfied that the charge of dangerous driving against the accused is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused is convicted as charged. This Court will now hear the accused's mitigation. 

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate

16th December 2014