The State Of Karnataka vs Chinnatambi
2021 Latest Caselaw 5936 Kant

                           1

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1799/2021

BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KADUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                     ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S., HCGP)

AND:

CHINNATAMBI
S/O AMASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
LORRY DRIVER,
R/AT BEHIND MALNAD SIRI,
UTC COLONY, SAGAR ROAD,
PWD QUARTERS,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN - 577 201.
                                      ...RESPONDENT

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.12.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL   CIVIL   JUDGE     AND  JMFC   KADUR   IN
C.C.NO.1487/2014      ACQUITTING     THE    ACCUSED
RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.279 AND 304-A OF
IPC AND ETC.,

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
                           2


                     JUDGMENT

State has preferred this appeal challenging the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.12.2020,

passed in C.C No.1487/2014 by the court of the

Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Kadur, acquitting the

accused / respondent for offences punishable under

Sections 279, 304-A 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

20.10.2014, at about 1.30 a.m., accused being the

driver of lorry bearing Registration No. KA-53/0896,

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from

Kadur towards Banavara and hit against a tamarind

tree, on account of which the cleaner of the lorry by

name Jagadeesh, who was sleeping behind drivers

seat, suffered injuries and died at the spot and

thereby, committed the aforementioned offences.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader

has contended that the trial Court has erroneously

acquitted the accused holding that there is no damage

caused to the lorry in question, even though the Motor

Vehicle Inspection Report marked as Ex-P8 shows

certain damages caused to the lorry. Further, the

photographs marked as Exs-P2 to P4 as well as the

spot sketch marked as Ex-P12, clearly shows that the

accident was on account of the rash and negligent

driving by the driver of the lorry. He contends that the

accused has not given any explanation and therefore,

the trial Court was not proper in acquitting the

accused.

5. The accident has occurred in the wee hours

of 20.10.2014 i.e. at about 1.30 a.m. It is not

seriously disputed that the deceased died on account

of the said accident. The prosecution has got

examined PW3, the owner of the lorry and from his

evidence, it can be seen that accused was the driver of

the lorry in question. It is not disputed by the accused

that he was not driving the lorry at the time of

accident. As per Ex-P8 - Motor Vehicle Inspection

report, which is marked through the Investigation

Officer, there was no mechanical defect and certain

damages caused to the lorry is also mentioned.

However, the prosecution has to establish that the

accident was on account of the rash or negligent

driving by the accused and he was solely responsible

for the accident in question.

6. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to

the accident in question. In the absence of any

acceptable evidence adduced by the prosecution to

show the rash or negligent driving by the accused,

Court cannot come to a definite conclusion that the

accused has committed the aforementioned offences.

PW-1 and PW-2 are the Panch witnesses to the spot

Mahazar - Ex-P1 and taking of Photographs-Exs-P2 to

P4. PW-3 is the owner of the lorry. PW-4 is the

Investigation Officer and PW-5 is the PSI, who

registered the case. The evidence of PW1 to PW5 is not

sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been able to

establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt. Even if there are damages caused to the lorry,

that itself will not lead to an inference that the

accident was on account of rash or negligent driving

by the accused, unless some positive evidence is led by

the prosecutions. Hence, the judgment and order of

acquittal passed by the trial Court does not call for

any interference. No grounds are made out to grant

leave to appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JY