Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 457 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. B. VENKATAREDDY

2001-06-19

K.R.PRASADA RAO, M.F.SALDANHA

body2001
M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE facts of this case are extremely distressing. The accused before us is a conductor who at the relevant time was working with the Andhra Pradesh state road transport corporation. He was the conductor in a bus that was transiting through the rural area of Karnataka on the karnool to yadgir road. On the evening of 18-4-1990, this bus had picked up a shepherd by the name of usman sab as one of the passengers. While the bus was making its way, the accused noticed that usman sab had boarded the bus along with a sheep and, the animal started bleating. This infuriated the accused, who for no reason at all flung the animal out of the bus and thereafter threw the owner usman sab after the animal. It transpired that usman sab sustained head injuries and he was found dead. The police were called into the picture and in the course of investigation the accused was charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was put on trial and the main evidence essentially consists of the depositions of p. ws. 1, 2 and 4 supported by the medical evidence. The deceased-usman sab had sustained a head injury which had caused his death. The learned trial judge recorded the finding that the evidence on record suffers from several infirmities and consequently acquitted the accused. It is pertinent for us to observe here that the witnesses in this case, are rustic villagers and undoubtedly, the quality of the evidence was not of a very high order. The learned trial judge has adopted a very rigorous standard of evaluation and has held that the inter se infirmities are self-destructive and consequently the accused was awarded the benefit of an acquittal. The state has assailed the correctness of this decision through the present appeal. ( 2 ) THE learned state public prosecutor who represents the appellant- state and the learned counsel who represents the respondent-accused both have been heard by us. They have also taken us meticulously through the evidence on record. The first submission canvassed by the appellant's learned counsel is that when an incident of this type takes place in a bus transiting between the villages one cannot expect highly qualified and independent witnesses to be found there. They have also taken us meticulously through the evidence on record. The first submission canvassed by the appellant's learned counsel is that when an incident of this type takes place in a bus transiting between the villages one cannot expect highly qualified and independent witnesses to be found there. The investigating authorities have produced three persons from the bus itself and they have undisputedly pointed out to the court that the deceased had boarded the bus with the sheep that because of the noise and disturbance created by the animal, the accused lost his temper and virtually threw the sheep and the owner out of the bus. What the learned counsel points out to us is that as far as the basic substratum of the incident is concerned that the evidence is absolutely consistent and there is no dispute about the fact that as regards the other minor descriptive aspects that there are several variations, but it is his submission that there is absolutely no reason why these persons should falsely implicate the accused and more importantly that despite cross-examination their credibility remains unshaken. His submission is that the defence has tried to suggest that this a case of an accident whereby the deceased lost his footing when alighting from the moving bus and because of that he got injured and lost his life, and that allegations have been foisted on the accused. His submission is that the defence, on the present record is rendered inherently false and that a clear case for conviction under Section 304-a of the IPC is made out. The learned counsel has also submitted that the medical evidence is fully corroborated with the oral evidence. ( 3 ) THE respondent's learned Advocate did point out to us that undoubtedly there are blemishes in the evidence and particularly as far as the incident is concerned. He also points out to us that the incident has taken place late at night and that this is one of the very unfortunate situations, wherein the deceased had attempted to alight from a moving vehicle, and that too carrying a sheep and that obviously he has missed his footing and sustained the injuries. The submission canvassed is that the evidence does not conclusively establish that it was the accused who threw the deceased out of the bus and certainly he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The submission canvassed is that the evidence does not conclusively establish that it was the accused who threw the deceased out of the bus and certainly he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Lastly, he submitted that the injury sustained by usman sab could have equally happened while alighting from a moving bus. ( 4 ) WE have carefully evaluated the rival submissions and we are conscious of the fact that this is an appeal against acquittal. To start with, we have examined the case from the well-settled position in law that interference would not be justified unless it is demonstrated that the earlier order has resulted in total miscarriage of justice. The facts of the present case are gross, to say the least. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing the basic ingredients of the charge and we do not agree with the observations of the trial court that the infirmities in the oral evidence are so deep-seated that they are good enough to destroy that evidence. On the contrary, we find that the evidence is both natural and truthful and that explains why there are variations because the grasping and reproductive capacity of each of the witnesses would vary. It has been established that the injury caused to usman sab was as a result of the Rash and Negligent Act on the part of the accused, but, we would need to dilute the punishment to a large extent, insofar as there are one or two grey areas in the case relating to the crucial evidence concerning the exact manner in which the deceased was sent out of the bus. It is principally because of this last fact that we have acceded to the submission canvassed by the respondent's learned Advocate that he should be given the option of a fine. The reason for this is also because after a lapse of 11 years, we do not see the wisdom in consigning the accused to "jail", but we would prefer to impose a reasonably heavy fine on the accused and direct that the same should be paid over to the legal heirs of the deceased "usman sab" so that some compensation could be awarded to the victim. ( 5 ) THIS case is representative of the attitude displayed by a larger Section of the employees of the road transport corporations who unfortunately appear to be oblivious of their duty to be caring and courteous towards their fellow human beings. The manner in which these vehicles are driven and the amount of damage, maiming and loss of life that results is something disturbing and when it comes to the conductors, the courts are flooded with cases of misconduct relating to misappropriation of the amounts collected, coupled with rudeness to the passengers and the manner in which the poor shepherd was thrown out of a running bus is representative of an abnormally high degree of callousness. Such behaviour is the end result of a confidence that irrespective of what are the levels of misconduct, that the union will always ensure that they get away with it. These are areas in which no compromises can be made and where the courts will have to apply the law with a level of firmness. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent-accused is set aside. He stands convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304-a of the Indian Penal Code and it is directed that he shall pay a fine which is quantified at Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand ). No in default sentence is awarded and the trial court is directed to ensure that if the accused does not deposit the amount in the trial court within a period of 12 weeks from today, that the same shall be recovered from him after issuing a "non- bailable warrant". On recovery of the fine amount, the trial court shall pay over the said sum of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) to the legal heirs of the deceased-usman sab. The appeal succeeds to this extent and stands disposed of. The bail bond of the accused to stand cancelled. It is, however, clarified that the observations made by this court are confined to the present proceeding alone and that they shall have no bearing on any other proceedings relating to his service. --- *** --- .