Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 987 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Satish S/O Krishna Naik

2020-06-05

B.A.PATIL

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Siddapur in C.C. No. 684/2016 dated 27.10.2018 wherein the accused-respondent has been acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. Though the appeal is listed for admission but with the consent of both the counsels, the appeal is taken up for disposal. 2. I have heard the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondent-accused. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution are that on 27.04.2016 at about 6.45 p.m. the accused being the driver of Maruti Omni vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03/P-9188 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and hit to a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-31-X-0417 and as a result of the same the complainant’s brother and the complainant sustained grievous injuries and subsequently the brother of the complainant succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered in Crime No. 87/2016. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused. Learned Magistrate after filing of the charge sheet secured presence of the accused and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and as such the trial was fixed. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it has got examined seven witnesses and got marked fourteen documents and also two material objects were marked. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating material as against him, the accused denied the said material and he has not lead any defence evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing both the sides the impugned judgment came to be passed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the State is before this Court. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned Addl. SPP are that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence placed on record. PW1 is an injured eyewitness and the pillion rider, who is the brother of the complainant, has expired due to the accidental injuries. Though nothing has been elucidated in the cross-examination the trial Court without properly appreciating his evidence, has acquitted the accused. 5. PW1 is an injured eyewitness and the pillion rider, who is the brother of the complainant, has expired due to the accidental injuries. Though nothing has been elucidated in the cross-examination the trial Court without properly appreciating his evidence, has acquitted the accused. 5. It is his further submission that, the spot mahazar Ex.P.3 and the map produced along with it would depict the fact that the said vehicle came to the wrong side of the road and caused the accident. In that light, the principles of res ipso loquitor is applicable. Without looking into the said principles of law the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused. Further, the respondent has not denied that he was not riding the said vehicle and he has not given any proper explanation. Even then the trial Court erroneously acquitted the accused. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to convict the respondent-accused. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued and submitted that the evidence and material placed on record indicates that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver the accident had occurred. Even in the cross-examination of PW1 he has clearly stated that he is unable to say exactly on which side of the road the accident took place, the road was in a curvature and he has not witnessed the offending vehicle earlier to the accident. All these circumstances have been properly appreciated and thereafter the accused has been acquitted. There are no good grounds made out by the State so as to allow the appeal. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have carefully and cautiously heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and perused the records. 8. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined. PW1 is the brother of the deceased and he is the injured complainant. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have carefully and cautiously heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and perused the records. 8. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined. PW1 is the brother of the deceased and he is the injured complainant. In his evidence he has deposed that on the date of accident at about 6.45 p.m. himself and his brother were proceeding towards their village on a motorcycle, when they came near Dugudimane cross, the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle came in a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of the same, both sustained injuries and his brother has been taken to the Siddapur Government Hospital and there his brother died, the complainant was taken to Shivamogga for further treatment. He has filed complaint as per Ex.P.1. 9. During the course of cross-examination he has admitted that the accident took place at curving point of the road and he is not able to say on which side of the road the said accident has taken place. He has further admitted that, before the accident he has not identified the offending vehicle as the road was in a curvature. PWs 2 and 3 are the spot mahazar panch to Ex.P.3 and PW4 is an eyewitness to the alleged incident, so also PW6. They have not supported the case of the prosecution and they are treated as hostile. PW5 is the ASI who registered the case and issued FIR as per Ex.P.7 and PW7 is the SI who investigated the case and filed charge sheet. 10. In order to bring home guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt the prosecution has to prove the alleged accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent-accused. Criminal negligence, as has been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.N. Hussain Vs. State of A.P. ( AIR 1972 SC 685 ). In the said decision it has been observed that, “Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case.” 11. State of A.P. ( AIR 1972 SC 685 ). In the said decision it has been observed that, “Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case.” 11. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above said decision and on perusal of the evidence of PW1 though he deposed that the said vehicle was in a great speed at the time of accident. But mere speed of the vehicle does not constitute rash and negligent act. It is trite of the law that speed is not the criteria for determining rash and negligent act of the accused. 12. Be that as it may, even the evidence which has been given by PW1 is not trustworthy and reliable. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the said accident took place in a curving point and he is unable to say exactly on which side of the road the alleged accident has taken place and he has not witnessed the offending vehicle earlier to the accident. Under the said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that only on such thin evidence it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court after discussing all the aspects has come to the right conclusion and acquitted the accused. There are no good grounds to interfere with the same. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.