Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 271 (KAR)

State by Kalasipalya v. B. V. Manjunath

2011-03-07

B.V.PINTO

body2011
Judgment :- 1. This appeal has been filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 10.09.2003 passed by the 3rd Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court) Bangalore in C.C.No.10145/2001 acquitting the accused respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 134 (A&B) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.11.2000 at about 5.15 a.m., on the J.C. Road, the accused was driving bus bearing No.KA-03-381 in rash and negligent manner endangering human life thereby, he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. It is further alleged that on the said date, place and time, the driver of the bus has dashed against the autorickshaw and as a result of which, the passenger in the autorickshaw by name Sundar has succumbed to the injuries and thereby, he has committed offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. It is further alleged that after the accident, the accused being the driver of the vehicle did not inform the same to the nearest police station, nor has taken any steps to remove the injured to the hospital and ran away from the scene of occurrence, thereby, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 134(A & B) read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 9 witnesses, PWs.1 to 9 and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.7. 4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. After hearing the prosecution and defence the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the accused and the State has filed this appeal. 5. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned HCGP for the appellant and Sri. J. Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondent. 6. P.W.1 Raju has identified the dead body and signed the inquest mahazar Ex.P.1. PW.2 Samiullah has also identified the dead body and signed inquest mahazar, so also by PWs.3 and 4, PW.5 is an eyewitness, he has stated that on the date of the incident that is, on 05.11.2000 at about 5.15 a.m., he was doing night patrol duty. 6. P.W.1 Raju has identified the dead body and signed the inquest mahazar Ex.P.1. PW.2 Samiullah has also identified the dead body and signed inquest mahazar, so also by PWs.3 and 4, PW.5 is an eyewitness, he has stated that on the date of the incident that is, on 05.11.2000 at about 5.15 a.m., he was doing night patrol duty. Being a police constable, he has stated that private bus on the J.C. Road came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the autorickshaw and as a result of which, the autorickshaw capsized and he rushed to the scene of occurrence and driver was severely injured and was bleeding and saw a passenger sitting on the back seat was found dead. They shifted the injured person to the hospital. He has stated that the accident has taken place due to the fault of the driver of the bus. In the cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of the accident there was darkness, the distance between the location of this witness and accident spot is 20 feet. There was no rush of traffic on the road. However, certain vehicles used to pass. It is suggested to him that he has not witnesses the accident and that he has filed a false complaint. He was present when spot mahazar was drawn on the scene of occurrence but he cannot say who wrote the said mahazar. It is suggested that the said mahazar was written in the police station. PW.6 is another eye witness who has stated that on the date of the offence, he was going on his moped from Minerva Circle towards J.C. Road and bus bearing No. KA 03 381 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the autorickshaw and passenger Sundar died and accident took place due to the fault of the bus driver. In the cross-examination, he has stated that deceased used to visit his paper shop and after the accident happened; he went to the spot. He has also stated that there was dark light and he was coming half a kilometer behind the auto. He has stated that he does not know the exact location of the populate automobile shop and he cannot say the colour of the bus and its name, PW.7 is another eyewitness. He has also stated that there was dark light and he was coming half a kilometer behind the auto. He has stated that he does not know the exact location of the populate automobile shop and he cannot say the colour of the bus and its name, PW.7 is another eyewitness. He has stated that on the date of incident, at about 5.45 a.m., a bus capsized on an autorickshaw and one passenger Sundar died and the accident has taken place due to the fast driving of the bus. PW.8 is the Motor Vehicles Inspector, who has stated that the accident did not occur due to the mechanical fault of the vehicle. PW.9 is PSI who has filed the charge sheet. 7. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is seen that PW.5 and other witnesses have not identified the driver. PW.5 states that there was darkness at the place of the accident. Under the circumstances, learned Magistrate has held that the prosecution has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is responsible for the accident. 8. I have gone through the entire materials on record. In an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal unless gross miscarriage of justice has been done by the judgment. The incident has been spoken to by only one witness PW.5 and the learned Magistrate has disbelieved his evidence. I do not find any compelling reasons to upset the order of acquittal and in that view of the matter, the appeal does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, appeal is dismissed.