Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 301 (KAR)

Muttanna S/o. Basanna v. State Of Karnataka

2021-02-23

K.NATARAJAN

body2021
ORDER : This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the J.M.F.C., Koppal (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.558/2010 dated 08.02.2012 and the same was upheld by the Fast Track Court-II, Koppal (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.12/2012 on 19.05.2012 for having convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of I.M.V. Act. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner/ accused as well as learned HCGP for respondent-State. 3. The parties herein referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court for convenience. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the Munirabad Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. It is alleged that on 25.07.2010 at about 2.15 p.m. accused was the driver of lorry bearing Registration No.KA-25/C-1053, who drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to the human life and dashed to the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-36/F-736. On account of accident, the driver of KSRTC Bus was succumbed to the injuries and P.W.3 was the conductor of the said bus lodged the complaint before the police and same was registered in Crime No.131/2010 of Munirabad Police Station. 5. The accused was appeared before the trial Court and denied all the charges framed against him. In support the case of prosecution, prosecution in all examined 07 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P.1 to 10. After completion of recording of evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused has been recorded by the trial Court. The case of accused was totally denial, but has not led any defence evidence. After considering the arguments and evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted for the above said offences, however, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. Assailing the same, accused has filed appeal before the first appellate Court, which came to be dismissed. Hence, he has filed this revision petition before this Court. 6. Assailing the same, accused has filed appeal before the first appellate Court, which came to be dismissed. Hence, he has filed this revision petition before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. The trial Court and first appellate Court have committed error in holding the accused guilty for the said offences. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the accused and further contended that the accused was falsely implicated in this case as he was not at all driven the vehicle and prosecution not established that he was the driver of said lorry on the date of accident. Though, examined P.W.2 the owner of lorry, who has stated, he has sold the said lorry to the accused, but no document has been produced to show the said lorry was sold to the accused. Even otherwise, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 the eyewitnesses are not acceptable. The P.W.7 is so called eyewitness and who said to be the passenger of bus at the time of accident, but Investigating Officer has not produced any document to show he was actually traveled in the bus and he is an eyewitness to the incident. Though alleged to be sustained injuries, but no wound certificate is marked. Though, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, but failed to appreciate the evidence on record. P.W.3 the conductor of bus is not able to say why he has not sustained injury, when he was accompanied the driver at the time of accident. The P.W.1 panch witness who turned hostile. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. However, mere running of the vehicle in high speed cannot be considered as rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, it has to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Satish, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 . 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP Ms. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Satish, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 . 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP Ms. Seema Shiva Naik appearing for respondent-State has supported the Judgments of both the Courts below and contended that the statement and evidence of P.W.3-conductor and evidence of P.W.7 the eyewitness are corroborates with each other. Both were categorically stated, after bus overtaking the lorry, they came down from the bus and tried to stop the lorry, the accused slow down the speed of lorry as could as stopping the vehicle, but all of a sudden he has started to raise the speed of lorry and dashed to the driver of the Bus, due to which, he has sustained injuries and died on the negligence of the driver of lorry clearly proved by the prosecution. The one eyewitness evidence corroborates with another eyewitness and complaint. Therefore, she prayed for dismissing the revision petition. 8. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as learned HCGP for respondent-State and on perusal of the records, the witness P.W.3 is the conductor of said Bus, has stated in his complaint that on the date of incident i.e. on 25.07.2010 he was the conductor and deceased was the driver of the said Bus. The Bus was running from Kudligi to Hubballi at about 2.10 p.m. on NH-13 road, near shimla cross driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-25/C-1053 came in over speed with rash and negligent manner and overtook the bus. Therefore, driver of the Bus (deceased) again overtook the said lorry and after stopping the Bus by the left side of the road and driver of the bus came middle of the road and made the signal for stopping the lorry by its driver, thereafter accused drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner by raising the speed of lorry, due to which, lorry ran over on the deceased. In support of his contention, the prosecution got marked Ex.P.4. The death of deceased-driver due to the injury and impact of the lorry running over him is not in dispute. 9. The P.W.7 is the eyewitness who also supported the case of the prosecution. In support of his contention, the prosecution got marked Ex.P.4. The death of deceased-driver due to the injury and impact of the lorry running over him is not in dispute. 9. The P.W.7 is the eyewitness who also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 also stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. However, none of the witnesses have seen the accused. As per the evidence, after the accident alleged to have been stopped the vehicle and raised the speed of the lorry and ran over on the deceased. Later, accused said to have surrendered before the police. P.W.1 is panch witness, who turned hostile. P.W.2 the owner of lorry has given evidence that he has sold the said lorry to the accused. However, it was elicited and no document produced to show, on which date he has sold the lorry to the accused and no document obtained from the RTO to show the accused had purchased the lorry from the P.W.2. Accused was running the lorry at the time of accident is in dispute and death of the deceased-Bus driver is not in dispute. The Ex.P.1 is spot mahazar. P.W.5-MVI report and evidence of P.W.4 show the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect. Ex.P.7 is inquest panchanama and Ex.P.9 is postmortem report are not in dispute. Ex.P.8 is sketch map prepared by the police, where the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no mention about the parking of the Bus on the left side of road and the vehicle was running from Koppal to Hubballi road, the accident was occurred on the some other road, which is cross rout showing of the NH-63. Neither P.W.3 nor P.W.7 has stated where the bus was parked and it was also not revealed in the Ex.P.8. Though the lorry was stopped on the N.H-13 road, but nowhere, it is stated where the Bus was stopped. But stated place of occurrence and passing of the lorry from Hosapete road to Kushtagi road. 10. On perusal of Ex.P.8, of course, it was not revealed where the Bus was stopped by the deceased and presence of P.Ws.3 and 7 is also not shown on the spot about where they have stood at the time of accident. But stated place of occurrence and passing of the lorry from Hosapete road to Kushtagi road. 10. On perusal of Ex.P.8, of course, it was not revealed where the Bus was stopped by the deceased and presence of P.Ws.3 and 7 is also not shown on the spot about where they have stood at the time of accident. Admittedly as per the evidence of P.W.3 the conductor, the bus was moving from Bellary to Hubballi. The bus which is said to be running from Hubballi to Bellary and lorry is also fallowing, overtaking the Bus it has to be stopped by the left side of the bus. Stopping of the bus was also not mentioned in the Ex.P.8. The lorry was shown as stopped in NH-13 which is Chitradurga-Bijapur road, not Bellary to Hubballi road i.e., NH-63. Apart from that, P.W.7 who said to be passenger and eyewitness, though he has stated he has sustained injury, but no document produced. As per contention of prosecution, he has traveled in the Bus. The Investigating Officer has not at all seized any bus ticket from this witness to show he has actually traveled in the Bus at the time of accident. The P.W.3-Conductor, who was given complaint and also stated he has also accompanied the deceased at the time of accident. But he has not sustained any injury. Apart from that, on looking to the very contention of P.W.3, who is the complainant and P.W.7 both were categorically stated that the lorry was driven by its driver in high speed and overtook the bus. Thereafter, the passenger requested the bus driver to overtake the said lorry and to teach lesson to the driver of the lorry, hence, the driver of the Bus went in a high speed and managed to overtake the lorry and immediately he has stopped the Bus on the left side of road and went middle of the road for stopping of the lorry. If the lorry running on the main road, accused was driver of the lorry may not be expected that the driver of Bus will come on the road, there is every chance of passing over the lorry on the driver is not ruled out. Since P.W.3 the conductor and P.W.7 considered as interested witnesses, they supported the prosecution case. If the lorry running on the main road, accused was driver of the lorry may not be expected that the driver of Bus will come on the road, there is every chance of passing over the lorry on the driver is not ruled out. Since P.W.3 the conductor and P.W.7 considered as interested witnesses, they supported the prosecution case. But the fact remains, the driver of the Bus, after overtaking the lorry, he stopped his Bus and went on the middle of the road, at that time, lorry ran over on the deceased-driver. Therefore, it cannot be considered accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused also relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish’s stated supra, in that case it was held that mere driving of lorry in a high speed that itself is not a ground to say there was negligence or rashness. The prosecution required to prove the rash and negligent driving by the accused who drove the vehicle so as to endanger to the human life and caused accident to attract Section 279 of IPC. But here the fact remains, the driver-(deceased) went on the road after overtook the lorry in order to stop the lorry, where the lorry was ran over on him. Therefore, it cannot be considered accused was rash and negligent in driving the lorry. Though the prosecution not produced any document to show that he was the driver of lorry, but he himself surrendered before the police after the accident. Therefore that accident cannot be said that he was not the driver of the lorry at the time of accident. On the other hand, this Court held there is no negligence on the driver of the lorry, but it was on the part of driver of Bus who went to the middle of the road suddenly after overtaking the lorry, thereby accident was occurred. This part of the fact and evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 not appreciated by both the Courts below, thereby findings of the Courts below are perverse and committed error, which required to be interfered by this Court. Accordingly, I hold the Judgment of the Courts below required to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following : ORDER The criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, I hold the Judgment of the Courts below required to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following : ORDER The criminal revision petition is allowed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the J.M.F.C., Koppal in Criminal Case No.558/2010 dated 08.02.2012 and the same was upheld by the Fast Track Court-II, Koppal in Criminal Appeal No.12/2012 on 19.05.2012 for having convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of I.M.V. Act is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. His bail bond stands cancelled, if any fine amount is deposited, can be refunded.