Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 373 (KAR)

State v. Vaikunta S.

2020-02-07

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

body2020
JUDGMENT Mohammad Nawaz, J. - Heard the learned HCGP for the appellant - State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - accused. 2. The State has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2018 passed in C.C. No. 1546/2016 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, acquitting the accused - respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2016 at about 8.30 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Bantwal Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-19-F-3045 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from B.C. Road towards Mangalore, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and near a place called Ramalkatte, dashed the bus against a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-19-EN-6592, on account of which, both the rider as well as the pillion rider of the motor cycle fell down on the road. The pillion rider by name Santhosh sustained head injuries and injuries on other parts of the body. He was immediately shifted to Father Mullar Hospital, wherein he succumbed to the injuries. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation made against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to establish its case, got examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Ex. P17. 5. The trial court after considering the evidence and material on record, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 6. The contention of the learned HCGP is that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who are the eye witnesses to the incident. He submits that PW1 is none other than the rider of the motor cycle and he is the first informant. He is also injured in the accident, as such it cannot be disputed that he is an eye witness. PW1 has clearly deposed that the accused being the driver of the offending bus in question, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, on account of which, the deceased sustained head injuries and died in the hospital. 7. PW1 has clearly deposed that the accused being the driver of the offending bus in question, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, on account of which, the deceased sustained head injuries and died in the hospital. 7. The learned HCGP submits that the evidence of PW1 is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. The Motor Vehicle Inspector - PW6 has stated that the accident has occurred not on account of any mechanical defect. Hence, he submits that the prosecution has established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He submits that the reasons assigned by the trial court is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the evidence of PW1 cannot be accepted as there are material discrepancies in his evidence. He has not gone to the police station to lodge the complaint and therefore, registration of the case on the basis of the complaint lodged by PW1 itself is doubtful. She submits that even according to PW1, he tried to overtake a car and thus the motorcycle came in contact with bus and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused was either rash or negligent in driving the bus. She submits that PW2 and 3 have been treated hostile by the prosecution and therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case. Hence, submits that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, she seeks to dismiss the appeal. 9. The case of the prosecution is that the accused being the driver of the bus bearing registration No. KA-19-F-3045 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle and caused the accident on account of which, the pillion rider of the motor cycle sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. 10. It is not in dispute that the accused was driving the KSRTC bus in question when the accident took place. However, the prosecution has to establish that the accident has occurred on account of rash or negligent driving by the accused. 11. PW1 is the first informant. According to the prosecution, he went to the police station and lodged the complaint. However, the prosecution has to establish that the accident has occurred on account of rash or negligent driving by the accused. 11. PW1 is the first informant. According to the prosecution, he went to the police station and lodged the complaint. Though PW7 - PSI has stated that on 12.04.2016, the first informant came to the police station and lodged the complaint, however, PW1 has admitted in the cross-examination that he was in the hospital and he has not gone to the police station to lodge the complaint. According to the prosecution, PW1 was riding the motor cycle and the deceased was the pillion rider. It is elicited from PW1 in his cross-examination that the contents of the complaint is not in his hand writing. He has not stated in the complaint as to on which side of the road he was riding the motor cycle. He cannot say as to which side of the bus hit against the motor cycle. Only after the bike fell, he came to know that the KSRTC bus hit against the bike. In his chief examination, PW1 has stated that the KSRTC bus came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle. In his cross-examination, he stated that on the left side of the motor cycle, an Ambassador car was proceeding towards Mangalore. When the said car was moving, he overtook the said car and went ahead and at that time, the bus hit against the motor cycle on its back side. 12. PW2 is an eye witness to the incident. He has not supported the case of prosecution and therefore, he was treated hostile by the prosecution. His evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. 13. PW3 is a panch witness. He has stated that he is also an eye witness to the incident. He has stated that he has signed Exs. P2 and P3 in the police station and he is not aware of the contents of the said documents. According to him, the bus hit against the motor cycle, on account of which the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries. In the cross-examination, it is elicited from PW3 that after hearing the sound, he came to the spot and at that time, the bus was stopped. Hence, it cannot be said that he is an eye witness. 14. In the cross-examination, it is elicited from PW3 that after hearing the sound, he came to the spot and at that time, the bus was stopped. Hence, it cannot be said that he is an eye witness. 14. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. According to PW1, he tried to overtake an ambassador car and while doing so, he came to the right side of the road. Hence, from his evidence it can be seen that, when PW1 tried to overtake an ambassador car, he came to the right side of the road and thus came in contact with the bus and fell down. 15. Perusal of the photos of the motorcycle, marked as Ex. P6 also do not indicate any damage to the rear end of the bike. According to the M.V.A. report marked as Ex. P13, the same go to show that the right side portion of the motor cycle and head light, right indicator and the right side mirror are damaged. There is no damage to the back side of the motorcycle. Hence, the case of the prosecution that the bus hit against the motorcycle on its rear end cannot be accepted. 16. This appeal is against the judgment and order of acquittal. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The reasons assigned by the trial court cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.