Karnataka High Court
Sri Sreenivasalu vs State By on 4 April, 2024
-1-
CRL.RP No. 531 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 531 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI SREENIVASALU
S/O SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS
BEARING REG. NO.AP-02-Z-0184
KALYANADURGA DEPOT,
DRIVER BADGE NO.576333
R/AT SETTUR
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE - 510 051.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY PAVAGADA POLICE
REPTD. BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO CALL FOR TCR IN C.C.NO.037/2016 DATED
05.02.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, PAVAGADA AND CRL.A.NO.5009/2019 DATED
02.03.2020 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
AT MADHUGIRI AND AFTER SECURING THE RECORDS THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE
WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT MAY
BE SET ASIDE AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 18.01.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 531 of 2020
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 05.02.2019 in C.C. No.037/2016 on the file of Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC at Pavagada and its confirmation order
dated 02.03.2020 passed in Crl.A No.5009/2019 on the file of
the IV Additional Sessions Judge at Madhugiri, by which both
the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner herein is
guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 134(a) and (b),
187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act (for short 'M.V Act').
2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be
considered henceforth for convenience
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.10.2015
at about 12.30 p.m., the petitioner being the driver of the bus
bearing No.AP-02-Z-184 drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed in the Pavagada-Madakashira
road near Rajavanthi Village and dashed the person who was
standing in the footpath, consequently, the deceased sustained
injury. Thereafter, on 19.10.2015 he succumbed to the
injuries. A complaint came to be registered by the complainant
against the petitioner/accused. The respondent police have
registered a case in Crime No.166/2015 for the offences stated
supra. The respondent police after conducting investigation,
submitted the charge sheet.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 and got
marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. After appreciating
both oral and documentary evidence on record, both the Courts
have concurrently held that the petitioner / accused is found
guilty of the offences stated supra. Hence, the petitioner is
before this Court.
5. Heard Sri.Subramanya H.V., learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai.K, learned HCGP for the
respondent/State.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below in
convicting the accused is not in accordance with law, which is
against the evidence on record. Therefore, the concurrent
findings are perverse and illegal and it is liable to be set aside.
7. It is further submitted that except the evidence of
PW.4 none of the witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution regarding rash and negligent driving of the
accused. The evidence of PW.4 contains contradiction in
respect of his presence as eyewitness. Though PW.4 is not an
eyewitness to the incident, the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court acted upon such witness and recorded the conviction
which is liable to be set aside.
8. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses
have stated about the rash and negligent driving of the bus by
the driver. In fact, the witnesses have admitted that the road
contains potholes and vehicles could not be plied with high
speed. When the evidence regarding rash and negligent driving
is absent, the Courts below should have recorded the acquittal
of the accused, however, both the Courts have concurrently
held that the accused found guilty of the offences stated supra
which is liable to be set aside. Making such submission, the
learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
9. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent -
State justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below in
convicting the petitioner herein and submitted that admittedly
the petitioner was driving the bus and it is also an admitted fact
that the deceased sustained injury due to the accident, and the
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. As per
the evidence of PW.4, the bus caused accident to the deceased
and the deceased died due to the said accident.
10. It is further submitted that even though the high
speed of the vehicle may not be considered as relevant, the
rashness and negligent driving of the bus by the accused has
been considered properly by the Courts below. To substantiate
the word 'negligence', it is always not necessary that the
vehicle to be plied with high speed. Even if the vehicle is plied
with moderate speed in a rash and negligent manner, the act of
the person who drive the said vehicle would be considered as
negligent act. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the
evidence and recorded the conviction and therefore, it is not
appropriate to interfere with the concurrent findings. Making
such submission, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State
prays to dismiss the petition.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below, it is
appropriate to refer to the evidence of all the witnesses by way
of cursory look.
12. In the present case, PW.1 is a witness to Ex.P1
which is the seizure mahazar under which APSRTC bus was
seized. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
13. PW.2 is a witness to spot mahazar which is marked
as Ex.P2 and has supported the case of the prosecution.
14. PW.3 is the son of the deceased Anjanappa. He is
said to have received the information regarding the accident
from the third person and said to have lodged a complaint on
18.10.2015 as per Ex.P3.
15. PW.4 is an independent witness. He stated that,
deceased Anjappa and himself were standing on the right side
of the road and both were talking each other. At about 12.30
p.m., APSRTC bus which was being plied from Madakashira,
dashed against Anjanappa who was standing on the road and
he sustained injuries, later he died while shifting to the
hospital. He is also witness to spot mahazar which is marked
as Ex.P2 and also witness to seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P1.
Even though he has been subjected to cross-examination, he
has supported the case of the prosecution.
16. PW.5 who is also witness to Ex.P1 supported the
case of the prosecution.
17. PW.6 said to be the eyewitness to the accident,
however, he has turned hostile and not supported the case of
the prosecution. PW.7 also not supported the case of the
prosecution.
18. PW.8 was working as police officer, said to have
conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.
19. PW.9 was working as PSI of the Pavagada Police
Station. He said to have conducted part of investigation and
handed over further investigation to PW.8.
20. PW.10 was working as ADC and deposed that
petitioner was the driver of the bus on the alleged day of
accident.
21. On careful reading of the evidence of all the
witnesses, as per the evidence of PW.3-Naresh, who is the son
of the deceased, he is said to have lodged a complaint after
having received the information regarding the accident.
According to him, his father sustained injuries in the accident
and died even after the proper treatment being given.
Further, he has stated in his evidence that on the date of the
accident, his elder brother and his father were standing on the
side of the road and both were talking with each other.
However, he did not depose about the presence of PW.4 at the
place of occurrence.
22. PW.4 is said to be eyewitness to the incident has
deposed that himself and the deceased were talking with each
other on the side of the road. The bus which was being driven
by the accused came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed the deceased, consequently, the deceased sustained
injuries, later he died. On conjoint reading of evidence of
PWs.3 and 4, it is hard to believe that PW.4 is an eyewitness to
the incident, however, the Courts below acted upon the
evidence of PW.4 as eyewitness to the incident and recorded
the conviction which is erroneous and unsustainable.
23. After having considered the evidence of PWs.3 and
4, it appears that none of the other witnesses have spoken
about the rash and negligent driving. In the absence of
evidence regarding rash and negligent driving, it cannot be said
that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable
doubt regarding the accident caused due to rash and negligent
act. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances
of the case, it is needless to say that when the evidence of sole
witness is not trustworthy and reliable, the Courts are required
to look for corroboration. When the corroborative evidence is
not available and if the sole witness evidence is not believable,
it is not safe to record the conviction. Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that both the Courts have committed error
in appreciating the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 properly and
recorded the conviction which is unsustainable.
24. In the light of the observations made above, I
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 05.02.2019 in CC No.037/2016
on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at
Pavagada and judgment and order dated
02.03.2020 passed in Crl.A No.5009/2019 on the
file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge at
Madhugiri, are set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under
Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Sections
134(a) and (b), 187 of M.V Act.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Un/Bss
