Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1666 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Gangadhar Rama Gouda

2019-07-12

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Honnavar, in C.C. No.348/2016, dated 06.07.2018, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 379, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Though this case is posted for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 3. The facts leading to the appeal are that on 27.12.2015, at about 11.45 a.m. near Abithota cross on N.H.66, the respondent/accused was driving his 407 vehicle bearing registration No.KA30/1221 from Manki towards Honnavar in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly he turned his vehicle towards his right and dashed against a Hero Honda Splendor bike bearing No.KA-45/K-8175, as a result of which, P.W.4 and the pillion rider sustained injuries. Subsequently, the pillion rider died in the Manipal Hospital. On the basis of a complaint, a case was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was laid against the respondent/accused. Thereafter, Court below secured the presence of the respondent/accused and, after hearing, plea of the accused was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and as such the case was posted for trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution, in all, examined nine witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked fourteen documents as Exs.P.1 to P.14. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused did not lead any oral evidence nor got any documents marked. After hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent/accused and on considering the evidence on record, the Court below passed an order of acquittal. Assailing the same, the State is before this Court. 5. It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the Court below without proper appreciation of the evidence has come to a wrong conclusion. It is his further submission that P.W.1 is the complainant and an eyewitness to the alleged incident; in his evidence, P.W.1 has clearly stated about the incident and the presence of the accused at the place of the alleged incident. It is his further submission that P.W.1 is the complainant and an eyewitness to the alleged incident; in his evidence, P.W.1 has clearly stated about the incident and the presence of the accused at the place of the alleged incident. It is his further submission that P.W.4 is an eye witness and P.W.9 is an injured eyewitness and there is no evidence to discard the evidence of the said witnesses. It is his further submission that the occurrence of the accident has not been disputed by the driver and when once P.W.1 has identified that the accused was driving the said vehicle and has clearly stated that the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent/accused, the court below has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and requests to convict the accused. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused vehemently argued and submitted that the Court below, after considering the fact that though the complaint is lodged by P.W.1 and he has stated in his evidence that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent act of the accused, but in the cross-examination, he has clearly admitted the fact that only after hearing the accident sound, he went to the spot that the entire evidence which has been deposed will have to be disbelieved because of the said statement. It is also his further submission that P.Ws.4 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution; in their evidence, they have clearly admitted that they had not seen the alleged accident as contended by the prosecution in its case. It is his further submission that the Court below, after considering the entire material placed on record, has come to a right conclusion and there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order. The appellant has not made out any good ground to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. P.W.1 is the complainant and eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. P.W.1 is the complainant and eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.1 has deposed that on the date of the alleged incident, at about 11.45 a.m., himself and C.W.7 were going to Naazgaar General Stores to purchase household things and at that time, a mini lorry came from the village Manki and dashed against the motor bike belonging to C.W.6, as a result of which, the rider and pillion rider both fell down and sustained injuries and both of them were shifted to Honnavar Government Hospital. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that many vehicles used to ply on the said National Highway; the road i.e., the place of accident, towards Honnavar was an upward slope; and that some construction work was carried on in the said National Highway. He further admitted that when he and C.W.7 were going together, they went to the place of the accident on hearing the sound of accident. There are also some other admissions made in this behalf. 9. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses to Exs.P.2 and P.3 and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. 10. P.W.4 is the eye witnesses to the alleged accident. In his evidence, P.W.4 has stated that in the month of December 2015 the accident had occurred, but he does not remember the date. He further states that at about 11.30 a.m., when C.W.6 was riding the motor bike and the deceased was the pillion rider, a mini lorry came from the side of Manki and dashed against the bike of C.W.6. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that himself, C.W.1 and C.W.6 belong to the same caste are residents of the same village. He has admitted that he did not know which part of the lorry dashed to the bike of C.W.6 and he came to know about the accident on hearing the sound of collision. Other suggestions put to this witness have been denied. 11. P.W.5 is the SHO who registered the case and issued First Information Report. P.W.6 is the PSI, who investigated the case in part. Other suggestions put to this witness have been denied. 11. P.W.5 is the SHO who registered the case and issued First Information Report. P.W.6 is the PSI, who investigated the case in part. P.W.7 is also the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. P.W.8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspect, who inspected both the vehicles and issued the certificates as per Ex.P.12. 12. P.W.9 is an injured eyewitness. In his evidence, P.W.9 has deposed that himself and the deceased were going on the motorcycle; when they reached Abhithota at about 11.30 a.m., a mini lorry came from Bhatkal in rashly and negligently and hit the motor bike; because of the accident he sustained injuries and he was riding the motor bike at that time; immediately, after the mini lorry dashed to the motor bike, he became unconscious and regained his conscious at Manipal Hospital. 13. On going through all the evidence, which has been produced, the material witnesses before this Court are P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.9. 14. P.W.9, in his evidence, has clearly deposed that he was the rider of the motorcycle and immediately after the incident, he became unconscious and regained his conscious only in hospital. In that light, the evidence of this witness is not going to help the case of the prosecution in any manner. 15. P.W.1 and P.W.4, who are said to be the eyewitnesses to the alleged accident, have deposed with regard to the alleged incident but during the course of their cross-examination, both have admitted the fact that they came to the place of the incident only after hearing the sound of accident, which itself justifies the contention of the learned counsel for respondent/accused that they were not the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and they came to the alleged place after the incident. Even it is contended by the learned counsel for respondent that P.W.1, who has filed the complaint, is none other than the relative of the deceased. 16. By going through the evidence which has been produced before the Court shows that there is no cogent and acceptable evidence to come to conclusion that the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent/accused. 16. By going through the evidence which has been produced before the Court shows that there is no cogent and acceptable evidence to come to conclusion that the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent/accused. It is a well settled preposition of law that if any doubt arises in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. After considering the evidence of the prosecution, in detail, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.9 is not trustworthy and reliable and they are not considered to be eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the remaining evidence is that of official witnesses, which is not going to help the case of the prosecution in any manner. The Court below has come to the right conclusion and has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the Court below. There is no illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order and it deserves to be confirmed. 17. For the discussions held by me above, I am of the considered view that the appellant is not made out any good grounds to allow the appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.