State Of Karnataka vs G Somashekhara S/O. Bandri
2021 Latest Caselaw 2754 Kant

                                  -1-




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                        DHARWAD BENCH

              DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2021

                              BEFORE

                THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

                        CRL.A NO.2712/2013

BETWEEN
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI CIRCLE,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
REP. BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT CIRCUIT BENCH,
DHARWAD.
                                                      ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA.R.NAIK, ADV.)

AND
G. SOMASHEKHARA S/O
BANDRI CHANDRAPPA
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF METADOR,
R/O: MARIYAMMANAHALLI,
H.B. HALLI TALUK,
DIST: BELLARY DISTRICT.
                                                     ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHARAD V.MAGADUM, AMICUS CURIE)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL OF FILE THE APPEAL AS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED ON ACQUITTAL DATED 02.03.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC, H.B. HALLI AND BE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF ACQUITTAL
OF ACCUSED DATED 02.03.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
H.B. HALLI AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 279, 304 R/W 187 OF IMB ACT AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING ON THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-




                        JUDGMENT

The State represented by Additional State Public

Prosecutor preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned

judgment dated 02.03.2013 passed in C.C.No.253/2009 on

the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, H.B.Halli,

acquitting accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 279, 304-A of IPC read with Section 187 of Motor

Vehicles Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.05.2009 at about

8.00 p.m., the accused being the driver of the Metador

bearing registration No.KA-35/2983, drove the same in a

high speed, in a rash and negligent manner from Hospet

towards H.B.Halli and dashed to the Motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-35/L 6961, ridden by one Dakyanaik, in

front of Lakshmi Poultry Farm. As a result of which, the

rider of the Motorcycle and the pillion rider fell on the

ground. The rider Dakyanaik succumbed to the injuries and

died at the spot. The injured pillion rider was immediately

shifted to the Government Hospital at H.B.Halli. But

subsequently, he also succumbed to the injuries. Thereby,

accused committed the offence punishable under Sections

279, 304-A of IPC read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles

Act.

3. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 18 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P14(a) in support of its contention. The

accused has denied all the incriminating materials available

on record but has not chosen to lead any evidence in

support of his defense. The trial Court, after taking into

consideration the materials on record, came to the

conclusion that the prosecution is not successful in proving

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the accused was acquitted by the trial Court.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the State

preferred this appeal.

5. Heard Sri. R.Ravindra Naik, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the appellant and

Sri. Sharad.V.Magadum, learned amicus curie for the

respondent.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of

the appellant submitted that the prosecution examined as

many as 18 witnesses. PW.10 and PW.11 are the eye-

witnesses to the incident. The trial Court has not

appreciated the evidence on record and proceeded to acquit

the accused without any basis. Therefore, he prays for

setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by

the trial Court and to convict the accused for the above said

offence.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent/accused contended that there is absolutely no

material to hold that the accused committed the offence as

contended by the prosecution. Even though the first

information was filed by PW.2, he is not an eye-witness. He

is only a hearsay witness. PW.10 and 11 are cited as eye-

witnesses but their evidence does not inspire confidence in

the mind of the Court regarding commission of the offence

by the accused. The trial Court rightly considered all these

facts and circumstances and passed the impugned order.

There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned

judgment of the acquittal. Accordingly, he prays for

dismissal of the petition.

8. Perused the materials on record, in the light of the

rival submissions. The point that would arise for my

consideration is,

"Whether the Judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.253/2009 dated 02.03.2013 on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, H.B.Halli, is to be interfered with?"

9. My answer to the above point is in "Negative" for the

following reasons:

REASONS

10. The specific contention of the prosecution is that the

respondent being the driver of the Metador bearing

registration No.KA-35/2983, driven the same in rash and

negligent manner and dashed to the Motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-35/L 6961, which was driven by the

deceased and as a result of which, the rider and the pillion

rider have sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.

To prove this contention, even though prosecution

examined many witnesses, only PW.10 and 11 are the eye-

witnesses to the incident. Even though PW.2 filed the first

information, he is not an eye-witness.

11. PW.10-Umesha Naik stated that on the date of

incident, at about 7.00-7.30 p.m., he was proceeding on his

Motorcycle along with one Somesh Naik. Two other persons

were proceeding on another Motorcycle in front of him. A

Metador came from behind in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed to the Motorcycle which was proceeding ahead.

Both the riders fell down. One succumbed to the injuries at

the spot and the other was shifted to the Hospital. Witness

specifically stated that when he went to the spot, the driver

of the offending vehicle had ran away from scene of

occurrence. During cross-examination, this witness stated

that the accident had occurred at about 7.00-8.00 p.m.,

near Lakshmi Poultry Farm which was about 200-300 feet

from his Motorcycle. Even though this witness states that

he was proceeding on his Motorcycle, he pleads his

ignorance regarding the registration number of his vehicle.

The witness pleads his ignorance as to which part of the

Metador hit the Motorcycle. When this witness has

specifically stated in his chief examination that he had not

seen the accused at the scene of occurrence, the evidence

of this witness cannot be relied on to connect the accused

to the offence in question.

12. The other material witness is PW.11-Somesh Naik.

This witness has also deposed regarding the accident

stating that he along with PW.10 was proceeding on the

Motorcycle and the deceased was proceeding ahead of him.

The Metador hit the Motorcycle from behind, which resulted

in the death of the rider and injury to the pillion rider.

Witness identified the accused as the driver of the offending

vehicle. Further, he stated that the accused had fled from

the spot along with Metador immediately after the incident.

During cross-examination, witness stated that the accident

had occurred in front of Lakshmi Poultry Farm where there

is a road hump. He admitted that at the scene of

occurrence, vehicle could not be driven in high speed.

13. The evidence of this witness that accused had fled

from the spot along with offending vehicle, if taken into

consideration, the same is not helpful for the prosecution to

connect the accused to the offence in question. Even if his

evidence that he had seen the accused at the spot is to be

considered, the same is not corroborated by any other

witness. Moreover, this witness is not the informant who

lodged the complaint with the police. There is absolutely no

reason as to why he had not lodged the complaint

immediately after the incident. Moreover, evidence of

PW.10 that the incident had taken place 200-300 feet

ahead of his Motorcycle, that too at about 7.00-8.00 p.m.,

assumes importance. Under such circumstances, some

corroboration of the evidence of the witnesses is necessary

to form an opinion that it was the accused who was the

driver of the offending vehicle and committed the offence.

When the prosecution has not placed clinching materials to

corroborate its contention and to prove its contention that

the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle, I am of

the opinion that accused is entitled to be acquitted by

extending the benefit of doubt.

14. I have gone through the impugned judgment of

acquittal passed by the trial Court. It has taken for

consideration all the materials on record and has rightly

came to the conclusion to acquit the accused. I do no find

- 10 -

any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the

answer to the above point is in the 'Negative'. Petition is

dismissed as devoid of merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMJ