Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 416 (KAR)

State v. S G Prakash

2023-03-10

P.N.DESAI

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dtd. 31/7/2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna in CC No.906/2010 whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for short). 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 14/5/2010, at about 3.15 a.m., near Kattarigattamma temple on B.M.Road, Channarayapatna, one Lalitha was proceeding in the ambulance bearing No.KA-13/A-6511 driven by accused no.2 for her treatment along with others on account of the injuries sustained by her in an accident and when the said Lalitha intended to vomit, the ambulance was stopped. At that time, the driver (accused no.1) of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA18/F-430 came from Hassan side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the ambulance from hind side due to which, Lalitha and Suchitra who were in the ambulance sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The other inmates of the ambulance also sustained simple injuries. In this regard, a case came to be registered in Channarayapatna Rural Police Station. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer after investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 7 and got marked fifteen documents as Exs.P1 to P15. After hearing the arguments, the learned JMFC acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard the learned HCGP Smt. K.P.Yashodha for State and Sri P.B.Umesh, learned counsel for Sri R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2, though served with the notice, has remained unrepresented. 5. The learned HCGP contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is contrary to the evidence and material on record. It is further contended that PWs.1 and 2 are the injured witnesses who had traveled in the ambulance along with the deceased and they have supported the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the evidence of PWs.1 to PW.3 fully support the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the evidence of PWs.1 to PW.3 fully support the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, the accused have not given any explanation to the question posed while recording their statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. It is argued that the accused are drivers of both the vehicles and they have to explain as to how the accident occurred. It is also contended that the finding of the trial court is not correct and the learned Judge of the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and acquittal of the accused. Therefore, she prayed to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court and convict the accused. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses creates a doubt as to the manner in which the accident occurred. PW.1 states that both Lalitha and Suchitra got down from the ambulance. Therefore, it creates a doubt as to whether they sustained injuries when they were seated in the ambulance or when they were outside. The evidence of PW.1 shows that the ambulance was stopped on the road itself. PW.2 - Bettegowda has admitted in the cross examination that part of the ambulance was on the road itself and the accident took place around 3.30 a.m. He has also admitted that it was a one way road and it is a National Highway. Number of vehicles were passing on the road. PW.3- Subramanya, Head Constable has received the memo and recorded the statement of the injured and registered Crime No.64/2010. PW.4 - Beeregowda is the conductor of the bus. He has also stated that the ambulance was parked on the left side of the road. He has also stated that number of vehicles were passing at that time and he was sitting on the rear side of the bus. PW.5-Elizar has stated that accused no.2 was the driver of the said ambulance as on the date of the accident. PW.6-N.Kumar, Inspector, who conducted the part of the investigation and drawn the sketch of place of accident has admitted in the cross examination that he has not verified the tyre marks on road. PW.7-Basavaraju, who is the witness for spot panchanama has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.6-N.Kumar, Inspector, who conducted the part of the investigation and drawn the sketch of place of accident has admitted in the cross examination that he has not verified the tyre marks on road. PW.7-Basavaraju, who is the witness for spot panchanama has not supported the case of the prosecution. With their contention the learned counsel prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record. The post mortem report shows that the death of two persons was as a result of a road traffic accident. The other two inmates has sustained simple injuries and one has sustained grievous injury. 8. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the early morning at 3.30 a.m. and the road is a National Highway and it was one way road and number of buses were passing on the road. The sketch of the accident shows that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. Where the driver of the ambulance had parked the vehicle is not forthcoming. Admittedly, on the other hand, it is shown that the ambulance was parked on the left side of the road. There is no clear evidence as to when the deceased got down from the ambulance. Whether the accident occurred when they were inside the ambulance or outside the ambulance is not forthcoming. In fact, the ambulance goes in high speed and when the patient expressed inconvenience as there was symptoms of vomiting, the vehicle was stopped. But, the manner in which the accident has occurred is not forthcoming. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the ambulance driver or the bus driver is not forthcoming. 9. The learned trial Judge has referred to the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 and held that the same will not support the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Judge has referred to the place of accident i.e., Ex.P14-map and found that the sketch map itself creates a doubt as to the manner in which the accident has occurred. There is no evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus. There is no evidence to show that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. There is no evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus. There is no evidence to show that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. The learned trial Judge has relied upon the decision of this Court in K.Srinivas vs. State of Karnataka [2003 KCCR 1961] wherein it is held that mere speed is not rash and negligent driving. Further, the learned trial Judge has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Renu Mallaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2008(4) Crimes 241] wherein the Supreme Court has held that when there is no satisfactory evidence, the accused cannot be convicted. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence regarding the manner in which the accident took place at 3.30 a.m. and in the absence of evidence regarding driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life the accused cannot be convicted. It appears from the case of the prosecution that the allegation is that the driver of the ambulance stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road without the parking lights. The other allegation is that the driver of the KSRTC bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the ambulance. The other version of the evidence is that both the deceased got down from the ambulance and they were vomiting by the side of the road. Therefore, in view of the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence and as the prosecution has failed to prove the case, the learned JMFC has given a benefit of doubt and has acquitted the accused. 10. It is settled principles of law that this Court being an Appellate Court will not interfere in the judgment of acquittal unless it is shown that the judgment of acquittal is perverse, erroneous and the same is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. In the light of the above principles, if the present judgment of acquittal and the evidence are considered, in my considered view, there is no ground to show that the judgment of acquittal has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the finding of the trial court. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby dismissed. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the finding of the trial court. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) The judgment of acquittal dtd. 31/7/2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna in CC No.906/2010 is hereby confirmed. (iii) The bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused stands cancelled. (iv) Registry to send back the records to the trial court. (v) No order as to costs.