Karnataka High Court
State By Circle Inspector Of ... vs Lakshminarayana on 21 July, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1152 OF 2018
BETWEEN
STATE BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
GANGOLLI POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR K.K., HCGP]
AND
LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. K. CHANDRA,
R/O. JANATHA COLONY,
BAVIKATTE, GANGOLLI VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201. ... RESPONDENT
[BY SMT. NALINA K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VENKATA REDDY S.K., ADVOCATE]
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378 (1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.03.2018 IN C.C.
NO.782/2014 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC.,
AT KUNDAPURA, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 & 304A OF IPC, BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE
THE RESPONDENT FOR THE SAME.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court,
acquitting the accused/respondent of offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
2. Heard both sides and perused the material on
record.
3. As per prosecution, on 23.11.2013 at about
11.25 a.m., the accused being the driver of Durgamba
Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-B-64 drove the said
bus from Byndoor towards Kundapura in a rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit
against a pedestrian by name Heriya Naik, at
Maravanthe on NH-66, Gangolli Village, Kundapura
Taluk, as a result of which the said person sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
4. PW.1 is the first informant. The complaint is
marked as Ex.P1. PWs.2, 4 and 6 are the other eye
witnesses to the incident. PW.3 is one of the panch
witness along with PW.6 to the spot mahazar/Ex.P2 and
Sketch Ex.P3. PW.5 is the GPA holder of the owner of
the bus. PW.7 is the panch witness to the seizure
Mahazar of the vehicle, Ex.P12 and arrest mahazar
Ex.P13. PW.8 is the Head Constable who registered the
case. PW.9 and 10 are the Investigation Officers.
5. PWs.1, 2, 4 to 7 have been treated hostile by
the prosecution. PW.1 has stated that he do not know as
to who was responsible for the accident. He has
specifically stated that by the time he reached the spot,
the accident had taken place. He has also stated that
the accused was not present at the spot. Similarly, even
PW.2 has stated that he is not aware of the cause of
accident. Their evidence is not at all helpful to the
prosecution.
6. Learned High Court Government pleader
contends that PWs.4 and 6 though treated hostile, have
spoken about the manner in which the accident has
occurred. He would contend that even the sketch -
Ex.P3 would show that the accident occurred on the
extreme right side on a mud road and therefore, there is
sufficient material to show that the bus was driven to the
extreme right side and hit against a pedestrian.
7. Perusal of the evidence of PWs.4 and 6, so
called eye witnesses does not show that they have
identified the driver of the bus. PW.4 has deposed that
the bus came from Byndoor side and was proceeding
towards Kundapura and while overtaking a vehicle, it hit
against the pedestrian who was standing on the mud
road and then the bus fell into a ditch. He has pleaded
his ignorance about the identity of the accused and
stated that he cannot identify him. In a similar passion
even PW.6 has failed to identify the accused.
8. It is relevant to see that as per prosecution,
the spot was shown by the complainant-PW.1 and the
spot mahazar-Ex.P2 and sketch were drawn at the spot
and the signatures of PWs.3 and 6 were taken to the said
documents.
9. PW.1 in his evidence has deposed that the bus
which caused accident was there when he went to the
spot. PWs.3 and 6 who have attested Exs.P2 and 3 have
stated that at the time of preparing the mahazars, the
vehicle was not at the spot. PW.6 has deposed that the
police came to the spot and they were present for about
an hour and when they came, the vehicle was not there
at the spot. In the cross-examination he has stated that
he signed the mahazars namely Exs.P2 and 3 between
3.30 - 4.00 p.m. Though in the cross-examination he
has stated that at about 4.00 p.m. the police came and
removed the bus from the spot, the same is contrary to
his chief examination.
10. The learned High Court Government pleader
relied on the sketch-Ex.P3 and contended that the spot
of accident is on the extreme right side of the road from
Byndoor towards Kundarpura and therefore, it is clear
that the vehicle in question was driven in a rash and
negligent manner and it came to the wrong side of the
road and hit the pedestrian and caused the accident. He
has also contended that the accused has not given any
explanation as to how the accident took place. He
further contends that as per MV report, accident is not
on account of any mechanical defect.
11. The prosecution has to prove its case against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The initial burden
is on the prosecution to establish that the accused drove
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that he is
responsible for the accident. In the case on hand, the
spot is shown by PW.1. According to prosecution he was
present at the time of preparing Ex.P2. Spot mahazar
and sketch are prepared by PW.10. He has stated that
the spot was shown by CW.1 i.e., the first informant and
after examining the spot he prepared the spot mahazar
as well as the sketch. PW.1 has completely turned
hostile to the prosecution. The evidence of PWs.3 and 6
shows that when the police came the bus was not there
at the spot. Hence, the spot of accident shown in the
sketch cannot be held to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Another aspect is that as per PW.10, on
24.11.2013 he took over investigation and on that day
he went to the spot and prepared Exs.P2 and 3. In
Ex.P2 though it is mentioned that the mahazar was
prepared on 24.11.2013 between 9.30 - 10.30 a.m., in
the first page it is mentioned that the said mahazar was
prepared on 23.11.2013. The same is not explained by
the prosecution. Further, PW.5 has deposed that, he is
not aware as to who was driving the bus at the time of
accident. From the material on record it cannot be held
that the witnesses have identified the accused as the one
who was driving the bus. The prosecution has failed to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
12. The trial Court has assigned valid reasons for
acquitting the accused. There are no grounds made out
to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the
trial Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB/-
