Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed Nasir on 27 May, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1918 of 2021
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE PSI,
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION SOUTH,
MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. K.K. KRISHNAKUMAR, HCGP]
AND:
MOHAMMED NASIR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O. T.K. MOHAMMED,
R/AT NO.22, TAGGAR GAD,
JAALI BHATKAL DISTRICT,
KARAVARA, BHATKAL,
UTTARA KANNADA - 581 320. ... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE]
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)(3)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 26.02.2021 IN
C.C.NO.1301/2019 PASSED BY THE JMFC [VII COURT] AT
MANGALURU, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND
304A OF IPC, SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF ACQUITTAL BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND
CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE AFORESAID
OFFENCES.
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the State, challenging the
Judgment and Order of acquittal of the
respondent/accused, for offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC passed by the JMFC [VII
Court], Mangaluru, in Criminal Case No.1301/2019 dated
26.02.2021.
2. Heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader and perused the material on record.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on
29.10.2018 at about 8.30 p.m., the accused being the
driver of lorry bearing reg. No.KA-47/7370, drove the same
in a rash and negligent manner from Mangaluru towards
Talpady and near Kotekar junction, hit the lorry against
one Raju who was crossing the road and on account of the
same, he sustained injuries and died in the hospital in the
morning of 30.10.2018, while undergoing treatment.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 10
witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to 23 to establish its
case. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence on record, vide impugned Judgment
and Order, extended benefit of doubt to the accused and
acquitted him holding that the prosecution has not
established his guilt.
5. The learned Government Pleader has contended
that the trial Court has not properly examined the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses in a proper perspective and
acquitted the accused pointing out insignificant variations
and discrepancies in their evidence. It is his contention
that the prosecution has been able to establish that the
accused was driving the vehicle which caused the accident
and in view of the evidence of eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws.2 to
5 who have clearly stated that the accused was driving the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the prosecution
has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and therefore contends that the reasons
assigned by the trial Court for acquitting the accused are
not in accordance with law. Hence, prays to set aside the
impugned Judgment.
6. The prosecution has projected P.Ws.2 to 5 as
eyewitnesses. It is the specific case of the prosecution that
the accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and hit against the deceased who was trying to
cross the road near Kotekar junction. According to P.Ws.2
and 5, the deceased was trying to cross the road at the
time of the accident. On the other hand, P.Ws.3 and 4
have deposed in their evidence that the lorry in question
hit against the deceased when he was standing near the
junction.
7. Ex.P7 is the spot-mahazar and Ex.P8 is the
sketch. The same shows that there is a divider and a zebra
crossing near the place of accident. However, the accident
has not taken place on the zebra crossing, but at a little
distance of about 3 ft. as admitted by the Investigation
Officer and the same is also evident from the sketch at
Ex.P8. The spot of the accident is shown on the road which
is a National Highway. Admittedly, the accident has taken
place at about 8.30 p.m. on 29.10.2018. Even according
to the prosecution, the deceased was trying to cross the
road. In so far as the evidence of the eyewitnesses are
concerned, there is discrepancy in their evidence. As
already noted, according to P.Ws.2 and 5, the deceased
was trying to cross the road and on the other hand, P.Ws.3
and 4 have stated that the deceased was standing by the
side of the road.
8. It is relevant to see that P.W.2 in his cross-
examination has admitted that he went to the spot after
about 3 minutes and at that time, few people had already
gathered near the spot. Even P.W.3 has admitted in the
cross-examination that by the time he reached the spot,
there was several people gathered at the spot of the
accident. In so far as P.Ws.4 and 5 are concerned, they
have admitted in the cross-examination that they have not
given any statement to the Police. Further, P.W.5 has
admitted in the cross-examination that he has not
witnessed the accident, but came to know about the same
from the people who had gathered at the spot. Though the
said witnesses have stated that it was the accused who was
driving the lorry in question, however, the rash or
negligence driving by the accused in causing the accident
has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
9. The trial Court having appreciated the entire
evidence and material on record and after giving reasons,
has acquitted the accused. This being an appeal against the
Judgment and Order of acquittal, I find no illegality or
perversity in the reasons assigned by the trial Court.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Ksm*
