The State Of Karnataka vs V N Ramesha
2021 Latest Caselaw 5574 Kant

                            1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE:

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1690 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.                           ...   APPELLANT

[BY SMT. LEENA C. SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP]

AND:

V.N. RAMESHA
S/O. R. NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
KSRTC DRIVER
R/AT 7TH ROAD, BASAVESHWARA BLOCK
K.R. NAGARA TOWN - 571 602.              ...     RESPONDENT


                          ***

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378(1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.03.2021 PASSED
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1267/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT PERIYAPATNA, THEREBY ACQUITTING
THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT, OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 338 OF IPC.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    2




                            JUDGMENT

The State has preferred this appeal against the

Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the Civil

Judge and JMFC., Periyapatna, in Criminal Case

No.1267/2014, acquitting the accused/respondent for

offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader

and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, on

28.08.2014, at 4.30 p.m., when P.W.1 was riding his

motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-45/S-18 from V.G.Koppalu

towards Dorekere, the accused being the driver of KSRTC Bus

bearing reg. No.KA-09/F-4134, drove it in a rash and

negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and hit

against the motorcycle driven by P.W.1. Due to the said

accident, P.W.1 sustained injuries to his left forearm, finger of

right hand, etc. and thereby the accused committed offence

punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1

to 9. The defence got marked Exs.D1 and 2.

The trial Court has held that the main ingredients of the

offence to constitute an act under Sections 279 and 338 of

IPC has not been made out. It is observed that the evidence

of the injured-P.W.1 is not supported by the evidence of other

witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove that the

accused was driving rashly and negligently at the time of

accident.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader has

contended that P.W.1 being the injured witness, the trial

Court ought to have accepted his evidence and convicted the

accused. She contends that according to P.W.5-Motor Vehicle

Inspector, there was no mechanical defect and therefore, the

accused was solely responsible for the accident. It is her

contention that the trial Court without properly appreciating

the material evidence has mechanically passed the order,

acquitting the accused.

5. According to P.W.1, at about 2.00 p.m., the

KSRTC bus which was coming in a high speed from

Kampalapura side hit against his motorcycle, on account of

which he sustained injuries to his left shoulder etc. He has

admitted in the cross-examination that the said two-wheeler

he was riding belongs to his father and he had applied for

learner's licence but, he had not received the learner's license

as on the date of accident.

6. Though it is the specific case of the prosecution

that the accident took place at about 4.30 p.m. on

28.08.2014, according to P.W.1, the time of the accident is

2.00 p.m. He has admitted that he had applied for learner's

licence but, he had not received the said license.

7. Admittedly, there were several passengers

present in the bus but, none of them have been examined to

prove the rash or negligent driving by the accused. As per

prosecution, C.W.4 i.e., conductor of the bus is an

eyewitness. However, he has not been examined. Except the

evidence of P.W.1, there is no evidence available to

conclusively hold that the accident was on account of rash or

negligent driving by the accused/respondent. Hence, the

findings recorded by the trial Court for acquitting the

respondent can not be held to be either illegal or perverse.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Ksm*