Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13406
CRL.RP No. 890 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 890 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA,
S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED 42 YEARS,
KA-14-A-4002 TRAX DRIVER,
R/O ARALIHALLI VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 57730.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA BHADRAVATHI RURAL CIRCLE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BHADRAVATHI,
KARNATAKA
REP. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2015
PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., SHIMOGA, SITTING
AT BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.A.NO.202/2012 AND ALSO THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13406
CRL.RP No. 890 of 2016
ORDER DATED 27.09.2012 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.1311/2011
AND DIRECT THAT THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED FOR
THE OFFENCE AGAINST HIM.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 279, 237 and 304-A of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.07.2010 at about
6:30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Holehonnur Police Station at Yadehalli
Camp in front of Cinema Talkies of the Shivamogga- Chennagiri national
highway, the accused being the driver of the Force Trax bearing
Reg.No.KA.14/F.4002 drove the same from Shivamogga-Chennagiri in
high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the
motorcycle which was proceeding towards Chennagiri to Yadehalli
village, as a result, the rider of the bike succumbed to injuries on the spot
and C.W.2/pillion rider sustained simple injuries.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined P.Ws.1 to 7,
and exhibited the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. The trial Court after
appreciating the evidence on record held that the prosecution has
established the guilt of petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubt
and passed the judgment of conviction which was affirmed by the
learned Sessions judge, against which the present revision petition is
filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the spot
mahazar was drawn after one day from the date of the accident, and at
the time of drawing the spot mahazar, the motor vehicle was removed
from the spot. Therefore, the spot mahazar does not establish that the
NC: 2024:KHC:13406
accident occurred solely on the account of rash and negligent driving by
the petitioner/accused, and further submits that P.W.2 who was traveling
as pillion rider in his cross examination-in-chief has admitted that since
he was the pillion rider he did not see the vehicle coming from the
opposite direction. Therefore, the evidence on record does not establish
that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligence
driving by the petitioner/accused.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State
submits that the evidence of the eye witnesses namely P.Ws.2 and 3
and also the spot mahazar clearly establishes that the accident occurred
solely on the account of rash and negligent driving by the
petitioner/accused, and the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court
after appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective have
passed the judgment of conviction and warrants no interference.
6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties and perused the trial Court records.
7. P.W.2 was the pillion rider, and in his examination-in-chief
he has stated that the petitioner came on right side of the road and
dashed against the motorcycle in which he was travelling as pillion rider.
He has stated that the accident occurred due to the fault of the
petitioner/accused but has not stated that the accident occurred solely on
account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner/accused. In the
cross-examination he has categorically stated that since he was a pillion
rider, he did not see the offending vehicle coming from the opposite
direction.
8. P.W.3 stated that his house is situated by the side of the
national highway, and the petitioner/accused was driving the offending
vehicle from Shivamogga towards Chennagiri, and dashed against the
NC: 2024:KHC:13406
motorcycle. In his cross examination he has stated that he was not
present on the spot, as on the date of the accident. The accident had
taken place on 22.07.2010 at 6:30 p.m.
9. P.W.6 Investigating Officer, in his examination-in-chief,
stated that, on 22.07.2010 at about 6:00 p.m. when he was in the police
station he received an information stating that the accident had taken
place, and he along with his personnel went to the spot, and found that
accident had taken place, and a dead body was lying at the place of
accident. At 9:15 p.m., on the same day, the complainant came to the
police station and lodged the complaint which was registered as
Cr.No.178/2010. On 23.07.2010, spot mahazar was conducted between
1:30 p.m. to 2:30p.m. In the cross examination he has stated that at the
time of the Mahazar , the motorcycle was parked by the side of road and
the offending vehicle was parked at the distance of 60 ft. from the place
of the accident, and there was no tyre marks on the road, and as on the
date of the accident it had rained. The spot mahazar and the sketch were
prepared when the body and motorcycle were removed from the spot.
Therefore, the spot mahazar as well as the sketch prepared by P.W.6
cannot be said to be credible, in the absence of any cogent evidence of
the eye witnesses to substantiate that the accident occurred when the
rider of the motorcycle was riding on the left side of the road.
10. Admittedly, the rider of the motorcycle came from yedehalli
camp on the service road, and joined the national highway when the
accident occurred, and the same cannot be attributed solely on the
account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner/accused.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:13406
ii. The impugned judgment dated 20.05.2015 passed by the
IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi in
Crl.A.No.202/2012 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 27.09.2012 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
Bhadravathi in C.C.No.1311/2011 are hereby set aside. The
petitioner/accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offences.
iii. Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKA
