Karnataka High Court
The State By vs Sudarshan P on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29788
CRL.A No. 993 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 993 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY
H.D. KOTE POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
AND:
SUDARSHAN P.
S/O CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDENT AT:
SHANTHIPURA VILLAGE
H D KOTE TALUK
Digitally MYSURU-571 125.
signed by
SWAPNA V ...RESPONDENT
Location: high (BY SMT. CHAITRA, ADVOCATE FOR
court of SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
karnataka
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C BY THE ADDL.
SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.12.2021 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.429/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C AT H.D.KOTE OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 304A
OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29788
CRL.A No. 993 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The state has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment of acquittal dated 01.12.2021 passed in C.C.No.429/2017, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
2. Heard Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant, Smt. Chaitra, learned counel for Sri. Suyog Herele E, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing the appellant-state submitted that the accused being the driver of the Canter driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle in which three persons were traveling. As a result of which, all the three persons have died. CW-2 is the eyewitness to the incident, but he has not turned up before the Trial Court. The Trial court, without issuing summons to summon other witnesses, -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29788 CRL.A No. 993 of 2022 proceeded to acquit the accused, by passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, which has resulted in grave injustice.
4. Learned counsel submitted that if the spot panchanama along with the spot sketch are taken into consideration, it shows that the driver of the Canter, being the accused, was not only rash and negligent in his driving, he has driven the offending vehicle to the extreme right side of the road, which resulted in accident. The rider of the motorcycle was on the proper side of the road and therefore, the Trial Court could not have acquitted the accused, merely because the eyewitness-CW-2 has not turned up before the Court for giving evidence. Therefore, she prays for allowing the appeal and to remand the matter for fresh consideration.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the appeal submitted that the sole eyewitness - CW-2 has not given evidence before the Trial Court. In spite of the issuance of a warrant, his presence could not be secured. Therefore, the Trial Court was right in acquitting the accused. At this length of period, the matter cannot be remanded to the Trial Court. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29788 CRL.A No. 993 of 2022
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellant-state has
made out any grounds to allow the
appeal?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
7. The unfortunate incident had occurred where the canter was said to have collided with the motorcycle on which three persons were riding and all the three have died. It is stated that the respondent was the driver of the offending vehicle and he caused the accident. Admittedly, CW-1 being the complainant was not the eyewitness. CW-2 is the only eyewitness to the incident. In spite of issuance of warrant, his presence could not be secured before the Trial Court. Even though the prosecution has cited as many as 30 witnesses, the other witnesses are formal witnesses. It is not the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that by examining -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29788 CRL.A No. 993 of 2022 any of these witnesses, the contention of the prosecution regarding rash and negligent driving of the Canter by the accused could be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader placed reliance on the spot mahazar and the spot sketch to contend that apparently the accused was in the wrong side, who came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed the motorcycle. That means to say the prosecution wants to apply the principle of res ipsa loquitur to convict the accused. But the fact remains that there are absolutely no materials to connect the accused to the offences in question and none of the witnesses are in a position to speak about the rashness and negligent act of the accused in commission of the offence. Under such circumstances, only on the principle of res ipsa loquitur the accused cannot be convicted. Therefore, I do find justification for the Trial Court in acquitting the accused. No purpose would be served by summoning the other witnesses and examining them before the Court. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29788 CRL.A No. 993 of 2022
9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18