Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 466 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. Raju Shetty

2020-02-17

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT K. Somashekar, J. - This appeal is listed for admission but with the consent of the learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel for the respondent, this matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 969 of 2013 dated 28.12.2015 whereby acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Trial Court. 4. It is stated in the theory of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet laid before Trial Court is that on 02.06.2013 at about 04.30 p.m., in Angadipalke of Gunduru Village of Belthangady, Siddhakatte - Venur Damaar Road, the accused being the driver of the bus bearing Reg. No. KA-20-B-2003 has driven it in a high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life dashed the bike bearing KA-X-7795 coming from opposite direction and thereby, caused the accident and due to the impact, CW-2 being the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, forehead, upper chin and a bike rider Jinnappa Moolya sustained grievous injuries to his head and thereby, succumbed to the injuries in hospital on 15.06.2013, as such CW-1 lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1. Subsequent to filing of the complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No. 40 of 2013 and FIR was sent to the Court. Thereafter, CW-19 proceeded with the investigation and during investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses and also conducted inquest panchanama on the body of the deceased and after completion of post-mortem examination, the doctor gave P.M. report as per Ex. P19. The concerned authority conducted inquest over the dead body and furnished inquest report as per Ex. P18. During the course of investigation, the I.O. received Ex. P21 with regard to verification of the vehicles, which involved in the accident. These are all the documents secured by the I.O. and laid the charge-sheet against the accused before the Trial Court. 5. Subsequent to lying of the charge-sheet against the accused, the Court has proceeded with the case by framing charges, where the accused did not pleaded guilty, but came to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused has been recorded. These are all the documents secured by the I.O. and laid the charge-sheet against the accused before the Trial Court. 5. Subsequent to lying of the charge-sheet against the accused, the Court has proceeded with the case by framing charges, where the accused did not pleaded guilty, but came to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused has been recorded. Thereafter, the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused in all examined PWs-1 to 8 and got marked several documents at Exs. P1 to P21. No material objects were got marked. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused has been examined as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused declined the evidence of the prosecution. Subsequently, the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. and he did not produce any documents on the part of the defence. 6. Heard the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel. 7. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution especially, the contents of Ex. P1 and so also fulcrum of Ex. P2 said to be conducted by the I.O. and so also drew the sketch as how the accident had occurred,. the prosecution did not facilitate to proceed in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the Trial Court rendered acquittal judgment. The accused has been acquitted for the offence under Section 279, 304A of IPC and it is this judgment, which has been challenged by the State by urging various grounds. 8. It is contended by the learned HCGP for the Appellant/State during the course of his arguments that the deceased who being the rider of the motor bike and CW-2 being the pillion rider has sustained grievous injuries due to the impact of the accident. The same has been revealed in the evidence of PW-1 and so also the contents at Ex. P1, complaint as well as the spot mahazar said to be conducted by the I.O. during the course of the investigation. But the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective manner even though the deceased Jinnappa Moolya succumbed to the injuries while he was under treatment. The same has been revealed in the evidence adduced on part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 9. But the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective manner even though the deceased Jinnappa Moolya succumbed to the injuries while he was under treatment. The same has been revealed in the evidence adduced on part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 9. It is the further contention of learned HCGP that PW-2 Jayantha Moolya said to be an injured being the pillion rider and so also an eye-witness on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and moreover, he being an inpatient has sustained grievous injuries, which reveals in the wound certificate. But the Trial Court has not appreciated his evidence with regard to rash and negligent manner endangering human life and cause the death of the deceased, which indicates in the post-mortem report and so also inquest held on the dead body. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires to be intervened, if not there would be miscarriage of justice as PW-6 who being mahazar witness and also received the complaint and registered the FIR and proceeded with the investigation. The inquest held on the dead body and so also the post-mortem report reveals about the accidental injuries inflicted on the deceased, which requires intervention by this Court by rescanning of the evidence furnished by the prosecution and convict the accused. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the evidence of PW-2 said to be the injured and also being the pillion rider who did not support the case of the prosecution even though he had sustained injuries, which was reported in the wound certificate issued by the doctor and though he became unconscious after the accident, but has deposed on part of the prosecution with regard to how the accident occurred and how the injuries were said to be inflicted on the person of the deceased. PW-3 Chennappa Moolya said to be father of PW-1 has stated in his evidence that he came to know about the accident from his son. He do not know who has got injured in the accident and do not know the number of the vehicles. He has not given any statement to the police and this witness turned hostile. Therefore, his evidence not avail for the prosecution. He do not know who has got injured in the accident and do not know the number of the vehicles. He has not given any statement to the police and this witness turned hostile. Therefore, his evidence not avail for the prosecution. Even though PW-4 Jayantha Poojary was a mahazar witness stated in his evidence that he do not know anything about the case and no mahzar was prepared in his presence but on the request of the police, he had signed a document in the station. Thus, the Trial Court by evaluating the entire material evidence on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not facilitated the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and has acquitted him, which does not call for interference by this Court and seeks for dismissal of this appeal. 11. It is relevant to refer that the sketch drawn by the I.O. during the course of the investigation reveals that the spot is the curve road and the spot is the ascending and that the bus was driven from Venur - Siddakatte so the vehicle was driven slowly and since it was ascending the bus would be driven slowly and the deceased who was coming on the other direction was sloppy area who were coming in a high speed and the accident occurred due to their fault and the same has also been admitted by PW-1, PW-5 and PW-7. That apart, the charge and prosecution paper speaks these facts. Admittedly, the bus has been driven from Venur to Siddakatte which was ascending and certainly, the vehicle could as per defence case could have driven slowly. Even the preparation of spot mahzar and sketch has also not been proved by the prosecution as PW-4 said to be the mahazar witness has deposed that he do not know anything about the case. In the case on hand, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged ingredients of Section 279 and 304A of IPC. The death of the deceased has been caused to accidental injuries. But the prosecution has failed to establish its case by putting forth cogent, corroborative and consistent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. In the case on hand, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged ingredients of Section 279 and 304A of IPC. The death of the deceased has been caused to accidental injuries. But the prosecution has failed to establish its case by putting forth cogent, corroborative and consistent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. However, at a cursory glance of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is said that there are no infirmities or glaring mistake committed by the trial Court in appreciation of the entire evidence and it has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not put forth its case by producing cogent and corroborative evidence and as a result acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I find no substance in the contentions as taken by the State in this appeal challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal requires to be rejected. Accordingly, I have to proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the State is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 969/2013 dated 28.12.2015 is hereby confirmed.