Karnataka High Court
The State By Police Sub-Inspector vs Ashraf on 15 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46521
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1313 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
PUTTUR TRAFFIC P.S., PUTTUR, D.K
REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)
NANDINI B G
Location: high AND:
court of
karnataka ASHRAF,
S/O LATE SAMPI BEARY,
AGED 32 YEARS,
R/O KEMMINJE HOUSE,
CHIKKAMUDNOOR VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K - 574 201
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH
AMICUS CURIAE FOR RESPONDENT (ABSENT))
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) CR.PC PRAYING TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.01.2019,
PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M.,
AT PUTTUR, D.K IN C.C.NO.535/2014, ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENE P/U/S 279, 338 AND 304A
OF IPC.
THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46521
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellant/State has preferred this appeal impugning the
judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed in CC No.535/2014 on the
file of the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M, Puttur,
D.K., acquitting respondent/accused for the offences punishable
under Section 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. PW1 has filed the first information as per Ex.P1
against the accused contending that on 09.05.2013 he was
riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA 14 J 4809 from Puttur
to Bollerikatte. The accused being the driver of auto rickshaw
bearing No.KA 21-A-4853 drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result of
which, he sustained injuries to his left leg and right ring finger.
The inmate of auto rickshaw by name Dhananjaya had
sustained head injury and injury to his face. The other inmate
Kusuma had sustained bleeding injury over her right leg. The
other inmates of auto rickshaw have also sustained injuries. All
the injured including the complainant were taken to the
NC: 2024:KHC:46521
Government Hospital at Puttur. The injured Dhananjaya had
later succumbed to the injury in the hospital. Therefore, the
informant requested the police to register the case and to
initiate legal action against the accused for his rash and
negligent driving and causing the death of Dhananjaya. The FIR
was registered and investigation was under taken. After
investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences
above said offences.
4. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence
and registered CC No.535/2014. The accused had appeared
before the trial Court and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution
examined PWs.1 to 11, got marked Ex.P.1 to 22 in support of
its contention. Accused has denied all the incriminating
materials available on record in his statement under Section
313 of Cr.PC., but has not led any evidence in support of his
defence. The trial Court after taking into consideration all the
material 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
passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. Being aggrieved
by the same, the State is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:46521
5. Heard Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP for the
appellant/State. Sri. N.Sampangi Ramaiah, learned Amicus
Curie for respondent/accused remained absent inspite of
service of notice and has not addressed his arguments. Hence
his arguments is taken as NIL. Perused the materials including
the Trial Court records.
6. In view of the contentions urged by learned counsel
for the appellant and on going through the materials on record,
the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or
illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
7. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that
the accused was the driver of auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.
KA-21-A-4853 and had driven the same on 09.05.2013 at 6.45
pm in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor
cycle ridden by PW1, as a result of which, PW1 sustained
injuries. Inmates of auto rickshaw i.e., one Dhananjaya
NC: 2024:KHC:46521
sustained fatal injuries and later succumbed to the same in the
hospital. One more inmate of auto rickshaw by name Kusuma
sustained injuries and was admitted to the hospital. PW1 states
in the first information that other inmates of auto rickshaw
have also sustained injuries.
8. PW1 who is the complainant and injured eye-
witness is examined before the trial Court. He states that he
has sustained injury and admitted to General Hospital at Puttur.
But strangely, no wound certificate is produced to prove such
contention. It is pertinent to note that PW2 is cited as eye
witness to the incident. But he has not supported the case of
the prosecution and he has deposed that he reached the spot
after the incident. PWs.3 and 4 are spot mahazar witnesses.
They have also not supported the case of the prosecution.
PWs.5 and 6 are the owners of motor cycle and the offending
auto rickshaw respectively. PWs.7 to 11 are official witnesses.
Strangely, the prosecution has not examined the injured eye
witness-Smt. Kusuma.
9. According to the version of PW1, there were 10 to
20 person who have seen the incident. But none of them have
NC: 2024:KHC:46521
been examined to prove the contention of the prosecution.
Strangely, the prosecution has produced Ex.P.20 wound
certificate pertaining to Kusuma who sustained fracture of right
leg and was admitted to the hospital on 09.05.2013 and
discharged on 10.05.2013. But nowhere in the wound
certificate, the history of injury is mentioned as due to road
traffic accident. Moreover, the said injured eye witness is not
examined before the Court for the reasons best known to the
prosecution. Non examination of injured eye witness is fatal to
the case of the prosecution. Even though PW1 contended that
he has sustained injury and was taken to the hospital, there is
no would certificate pertaining to him. In view of all these facts
and circumstances, the case made out by the prosecution is not
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is to be held that the
prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled for acquittal.
10. I have gone through the impugned judgment
passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration all
the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and has
arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any perversity or
illegality in the judgment passed by the Trial Court. There are
NC: 2024:KHC:46521
no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Trial
Court. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative and
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BH
