Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 722 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. K. Ramachandra Gowda

2020-03-13

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

body2020
JUDGMENT Mohammad Nawaz, J. - The State has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, acquitting the accused/respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. 2. Heard the learned HCGP appearing for the appellant/State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that; On 25.08.2014 at about 6.15 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Puttur Traffic Police Station, near Beeriga, Chikkamudnoor village, Puttur taluk, the accused being the driver of Maruti Omni car bearing reg. No. KA-21-N-3953 drove the said Maruti Omni car on Kodimar Public Road in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and hit against a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KA-21-K-3854. As a result of which, the pillion rider of the motorcycle viz., Monappa Shetty sustained simple injuries and the rider of the motorcycle viz., Dinesh Shetty sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries while undergoing treatment. Hence, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The trial Court by Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2019 passed in C.C. No. 701/2015 acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal is preferred by the State. 4. The learned HCGP has contended that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and totally ignored the evidence of eyewitness viz., P.W.2. He submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that P.W.2 is an injured witness and he was traveling along with the deceased and therefore, he is the right person to speak about the accident in question. In view of the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with spot mahazar and sketch which are marked as Exs.P2 and 3 respectively, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he submits that the reasons assigned by the trial Court are not in accordance with law and seeks to allow the appeal. 5. The prosecution has got examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to 22 to establish its case. The complaint is lodged by one Praveen Shetty, examined as P.W.1. He has not supported the case of prosecution with regard to rash or negligent driving by the accused. He has stated in his evidence that by the time he reached the spot, accident has occurred. Therefore, he is not aware as to the cause of accident. The complaint is lodged by one Praveen Shetty, examined as P.W.1. He has not supported the case of prosecution with regard to rash or negligent driving by the accused. He has stated in his evidence that by the time he reached the spot, accident has occurred. Therefore, he is not aware as to the cause of accident. He has stated that the accused was the driver of Maruti van. He has been treated hostile by the prosecution. Nothing is elicited from his cross-examination with regard to the cause of accident. In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, P.W.1 has stated that there is a curve near the place of accident. Width of the road is about 12 ft. and from the edge of the road, accident has occurred at a distance of 3 ft. 6. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. He was a pillion rider. According to him, on 25.08.2014, at about 6.15 p.m., he was traveling on motorcycle bearing reg. No. KA-21/K-3854 as a pillion rider. His Son Dinesh Shetty [deceased] was riding the motorcycle. They were proceeding from Puttur to Katara and when they reached near a place called Beeriga, a Maruti Omni car coming from Kodimara and going towards Darnandakukku hit against their motorcycle. Both of them fell on the road and sustained injuries. He came to know the name of the driver of Omni car as Ramachandragowda. Thereafter, two persons by name Gunakara and Gangadhara coming behind them shifted them to the hospital. His son was shifted to A.J. Hospital, Mangaluru, wherein he succumbed to the injuries on 27.04.2014. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that they were not wearing helmets. He has seen the Maruti Omni car at a distance of 15 ft. He has stated that there is a curve near the place of accident. The accident has occurred in a fraction of second. He has stated that his son was riding the motorcycle at about 2 ft. from the edge of the road and the total width of the road is 12 ft. He has stated that he cannot say as to whether there was any brake mark or blood stains at the spot of accident. 7. P.Ws.3 and 4 are also eyewitnesses. However, they have not supported the case of prosecution. They have been treated hostile. from the edge of the road and the total width of the road is 12 ft. He has stated that he cannot say as to whether there was any brake mark or blood stains at the spot of accident. 7. P.Ws.3 and 4 are also eyewitnesses. However, they have not supported the case of prosecution. They have been treated hostile. P.W.4 has stated that accident has occurred on account of the fault of the rider of motorcycle. 8. P.W.5 is a panch witness to the spot mahazar - Ex.P2. P.W.6 is the head constable, who registered the case and prepared FIR - Ex.P19. P.W.7 is the head constable, who conducted spot mahazar as well as sketch as per Exs.P2 and 3 and thereafter seized the vehicle. He handed over the investigation to P.W.9. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer who took over further investigation from P.W.9. He filed charge-sheet. P.W.9 is the PSI., who prepared the inquest as per Ex.P15. 9. Complaint is lodged by P.W.1. However, he has not supported the case of prosecution. His evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. According to P.W.2, he was the pillion rider and accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Omni Car by the accused. 10. It is relevant to see that P.W.4, has stated that the accident has occurred on account of the fault of rider of motorcycle i.e., the deceased himself. As per the sketch, the spot of the accident is towards northern end of the road and is about 3 ft. from the edge of the road. According to prosecution, the spot was shown by P.W.1. Admittedly, the vehicles involved in the accident were not at the spot. On the other hand as per Exs.P2 and 3, both the vehicles were at a distance of about 30 ft. from the spot. P.W.1 in his evidence has not specifically stated that he showed the spot. Spot-mahazar has been conducted on the next day at about 11.00 a.m. Though P.W.1 has admitted his signatures on Exs.P2 and 3, he has not specifically stated that he has shown the spot to the Police. from the spot. P.W.1 in his evidence has not specifically stated that he showed the spot. Spot-mahazar has been conducted on the next day at about 11.00 a.m. Though P.W.1 has admitted his signatures on Exs.P2 and 3, he has not specifically stated that he has shown the spot to the Police. In view of the evidence given by P.W.4 that the accident is on account of the fault of the rider of motorcycle, a doubt arises as to whether the accused is responsible for causing the accident by driving the Maruti Omni car in a rash or negligent manner. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that two persons coming behind them shifted them to the hospital. P.W.4-Gangadhara is one of them. Hence his presence has been spoken by P.W.2 himself. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 alone cannot be relied upon without any corroboration to convict the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record has acquitted the accused. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence, I see no grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.