Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1754 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Ravi

2019-07-19

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. Though this case is posted for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of learned HCGP, heard on merits. This appeal has been preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kustagi in C.C.No.431/2011 dated 01.03.2018, where under the respondent/accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(a) of IPC. 2. Heard the learned HCGP for the appellant- State. Though respondent is served with notice, he remained absent. 3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, on 07.08.2011 at about 11.00 am, the respondent/accused being the driver of Tata AC vehicle bearing No.KA-37/8738 drove the same rashly and negligently endangering the human life and therefore lost control over the vehicle near outskirts of Kustagi town near a petrol bunk and dashed against Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA-29/M-3577 and caused the accident. In the said accident, driver of the Tata Sumo died on the spot and another person died in the hospital while undertaking treatment and other persons sustained injuries. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered in Crime No.186/2011. Thereafter, after investigation charge sheet was led as against the accused. Accused was secured and after following the formalities, the plea of the accused came to be recorded. Thereafter, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and got marked 15 documents. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the Court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and ultimately acquitted the accused. Challenging the illegality and correctness of the said judgment, the State is before this Court. 4. It is the specific contention of the learned HCGP that PWs.1 and 2 are the injured eyewitnesses. They have categorically stated about the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and they have identified the accused as the person who was driving the vehicle as on the date of the alleged incident. The said evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Court below. It is the further contention that PW7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the vehicle and issued the certificate as per Ex.P14 and he has deposed that the said accident is not due to any mechanical defect. The said evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Court below. It is the further contention that PW7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the vehicle and issued the certificate as per Ex.P14 and he has deposed that the said accident is not due to any mechanical defect. He further submitted that the trial Court without bestowing any attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses especially the injured eyewitnesses, has erred in acquitting the accused, that too when two deaths have taken place in the alleged accident. He further submitted that, though there is sufficient material to bring home the guilt of the accused, the Court below has acquitted the accused and on these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below. 5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined nine witnesses. PWs. 1 and 2 are the injured eyewitnesses. PW3 is also the injured eyewitness and he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as partly hostile. PW4 is also a witness, who has come to the place of accident and after the accident, he came to know about the accident from the persons gathered there. PW5 is the panch to the spot mahazer Ex.P2. PW6 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and has also issued injury certificate as per Exs. P5 to P13. PW7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who examined the vehicle in question and issued the certificate as per Ex.P14. PWs. 8 and 9 are the Investigating Officers. It is PW9, who concluded investigation and field charge sheet against the accused. 6. On close reading of the evidence of these witnesses, though PWs. 1 and 2 are the injured eyewitnesses, there are too many contradictions and omissions in their evidence. PW1 is the complainant and also the injured eyewitness. But the said evidence of PW1 is contrary to Ex.P1 and he has deposed that, at the place of accident road work was going on and he did not clearly observe that at whose fault the alleged accident has taken place. Even in his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot differentiate between the Tata Sumo vehicle and Tata AC vehicle and that he had not noted numbers. Even in his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot differentiate between the Tata Sumo vehicle and Tata AC vehicle and that he had not noted numbers. All these evidences are contrary to the statement which he has given before the police. Even PW2 has not specifically stated about the accident. He has only deposed that the said vehicle was going in a zigzag manner and how the accident has taken place is not stated. He has deposed that, when the said vehicle was going on, a vehicle came from the opposite direction and hit the petitioner's vehicle and as a result of the same he also sustained injuries. 7. All these materials produced clearly goes to show that, though PWs. 1 to 3 are the injured eyewitnesses, they are not consistent in their evidence and the said evidence is so shaky and not trustworthy and reliable. The evidence of these witnesses cannot be acceptable. 8. The Court below after considering the said evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The other witnesses who have been examined have come to the place of accident after the accident and PWs. 6 to 9 are the official witnesses and their deposition would not help the case of the prosecution in any manner to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. Looking from any angle, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 cannot be acceptable and by relying upon the said evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. It appears to be just and proper. 10. It is well established proposition of law that, when the Court below after considering the evidence has exercised its discretionary power and has acquitted the accused/respondent, then the Appellate Court must be very slow in interfering with said orders. It can interfere with the said orders only if there is any perversity or irregularity in passing such orders. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the order of the trial Court. The order of the trial Court is in accordance with law and there is no perversity or irregularity in passing the said order. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.