Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 819 (KAR)

Sujith Roy Sequiera v. State of Karnataka

2014-09-16

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2014
ORDER : The present petitioner was the accused in a complaint lodged by one Renuka, the wife of one Rajappa, who was residing at Kannur, Mangalore. It is alleged that at about 9.00 p.m. on 8.3.2005, the petitioner who was said to be riding a Hero Honda motor cycle, bearing No. KA-19/R-5989, came at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, going towards Mangalore, had dashed into her husband, Rajappa, who was said to be standing on the left side of the road. As a result of the impact he had suffered a grievous head injury apart from other injuries and had succumbed to the injury the next day while in hospital. On the basis of the complaint lodged on 9.3.2005, a case was registered and after completion of the investigation, the police are said to have filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity). The trial court had convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.5000/-. An appeal having been preferred against the said judgment, the appellate court had modified the sentence and reduced the punishment to simple imprisonment for two years, but affirmed the sentence otherwise. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of PW-2, the complainant. PW-1, an alleged eye-witness is said to have been treated as a hostile witness. It is contended that the appeal being a continuation of the original proceeding, the point for consideration framed by the appellate court, is without independently considering whether the prosecution had proved beyond all reasonable doubt the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304 A IPC. In that, it ought to have been proved that the vehicle was ridden in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident. It is pointed out that PW-2 had categorically admitted that she had not seen the rider of the vehicle or had noted the registration number of the vehicle at the time of the accident. In that, it ought to have been proved that the vehicle was ridden in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident. It is pointed out that PW-2 had categorically admitted that she had not seen the rider of the vehicle or had noted the registration number of the vehicle at the time of the accident. But has merely claimed that the accused had accompanied her to hospital when her husband had been admitted there and the petitioner whom she was saw in court, at the time of her testimony, was the same man. The petitioner was not arrested on the day of the accident but only much later. It is on record that the identity of the accused is shown to have been established on the basis of the registration details of the vehicle. It is hence contended that the mere establishment of the fact that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was alleged to have been involved in the accident, by itself would not also prove that the vehicle was being ridden in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident was caused by the petitioner. 3. The learned State Public Prosecutor on the other hand would seek to justify the findings of the courts below and would seek to emphasize that the concurrent findings of fact can hardly be upset in the present revision petition given the limited scope of the proceedings. 4. On a close consideration of the record it is to be noticed that the primary ingredient of the offences alleged, namely, that the petitioner was riding the two wheeler involved in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident resulting in the death of a victim, was required to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. PW-1 who was cited as an eye- witness to the accident had denied that the petitioner was the rider of the vehicle. He has been treated as a hostile witness. PW-2 admittedly did not get to see petitioner actually riding the vehicle, nor did she notice the registration number of the vehicle. The son of PW-2, who had come on the scene immediately after the accident and having shifted the victim to hospital has not been examined as a witness to identify the petitioner as the rider of the vehicle. PW-2 admittedly did not get to see petitioner actually riding the vehicle, nor did she notice the registration number of the vehicle. The son of PW-2, who had come on the scene immediately after the accident and having shifted the victim to hospital has not been examined as a witness to identify the petitioner as the rider of the vehicle. The petitioner is named as the accused on the basis of the information gathered by the police with reference to the registration particulars of the vehicle. The evidence of PW-2, that the petitioner was indeed the rider of the vehicle is on the footing that he is said to have accompanied the victim to hospital and due to the fact that the petitioner is said to have remained there for a considerable time. This by itself would not establish that the petitioner was indeed the rider of the vehicle and that the same was being ridden in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore it cannot be said that the prosecution had established the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The judgments of both the courts below are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner stands cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded. Petition allowed.