IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1421/2019 Between:
The State by Aldur Police Police Station Rept. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru - 01. …Appellant (By Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) And:
Alisab I.Bandagi S/o Emam Sab Aged about 46 years KSRTC Bus, Driver Bengaluru, Central Depot Shanthinagar Bengaluru R/o Konnurm, Naragunda, Gadag District – 560 027. …Respondent This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., pleased to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.179/2017, acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence P/U/S 279, 338, 304-A of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal is coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This Appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur in Crl.A No.179/2017 dated 12.12.2019.
2. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State.
3. Though this case is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
4. The facts leading to the case are that on 03.10.2014 at about 12 mid night, the accused being a driver of KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA.57/F.886 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the Maruthi Car bearing registration No.KA.17/M.2788 due to which the driver of the Car sustained grievous injuries and subsequently he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of a complaint, a case has been registered against the accused and after investigation the charge sheet was filed.
5. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance, secured the presence of the accused and by the judgment dated 23.10.2017 convicted the accused.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred the appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamangalur against the order of acquittal, the State is before this Court.
7. The main grounds urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader are that the lower appellate Court without considering the material placed on record has come to a wrong conclusion and wrongly acquitted the accused. The trial Court in its full length has discussed the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and has come to a right conclusion.
8. It is his further submission that only on the count that the independent witnesses who were there in the bus has not examined the benefit of the doubt has been given to the accused. But when the inmates of the Car have categorically deposed about the rash and negligent act, then under such circumstances, the lower appellate Court ought to have convicted the accused.
9. It is his further submission that the Ex.P14 has not been properly appreciated by the lower appellate Court. It is his further submission that without looking to the material placed on record the first appellate Court has wrongly acquitted the accused. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order and convict the accused.
10. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. The learned High Court Government Pleader has also made available the evidence and documents of the witnesses.
11. On close reading of the evidence produced prosecution in order to prove its case had got examined 10 witnesses. PW.1 is the inmate of the car and he is complainant, in his evidence he has deposed that they were proceeding in a Maruthi 800 Car bearing registration No.KA.17/M.2788 and at about 12 mid night when they came near Thoranamavu Bus stand, a bus bearing registration No.KA.57/F.886 came from the other side with great speed and dashed to the Car and as a result of the same the driver of the Car sustained injuries and he also sustained injuries along with other inmates and subsequently that Kaveesh expired due to the injuries. He has filed a complaint as per Ex.P1. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness.
12. PW.2 is a traffic inspector of KSRTC, he has deposed that he received the intimation to get release the bus involved in the accident. He went to the spot and verified and he has also given reply to the police notice and thereafter he got released the bus.
13. PW.3 is the PSI who partly investigated the case. After registration of the case on the basis of the complaint Ex.P1 and he is also issued FIR as per Ex.P13. PW.4 is the CPI who also partly investigated the case.
14. PW.5 is the eye witness who was present in the said Car and she has deposed that the KSRTC Bus came from the other side with great speed rashly and dashed to the Car and as a result of the same her husband sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. She has further deposed that the said accident has taken place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Except that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. During the course of cross-examination, she has admitted that the alleged accident has taken place in the mid night at about 12 a.m. Totally, in the said Car seven persons were there and at the place of incident there was darkness and there was curve at the place of the alleged accident.
15. PW.6 is also an eye witness to the alleged incident he has reiterated the evidence of PW.1 and stated that the bus came with a great speed and dashed to the Car and as a result of the same Kaveesh and other sustained injuries. PW.7 is also an eye witness to the alleged accident and he has also deposed with regard to the bus coming with a great speed. PW.8 is the ASI who recorded the statement of the injured and brought it back to the police station and he has given the said recording before the ASI as per Ex.P1. PW.9 is the CPI who has investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the accused.
16. PW.10 is the driver-cum-conductor. He was also there in the said bus which met with an accident. On close reading of the evidence of all these witnesses PW.1, 6 and 7 though they are eye witnesses but they have not spoken anything with regard to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. But the only evidence available before this Court is that are PW.5. pw.5 in her evidence though she has deposed that the alleged accident has taken place due to rash act of the driver. But during the course of cross examination she has admitted that the alleged incident has taken place in the mid night at about 12.00 O’clock and in the said Car seven persons were travelling and she did not observe any humps were there and there was a curve. By taking into consideration of the evidence of PW.5, though she has stated that the alleged incident has taken place due to rash driving of the KSRTC Bus driver but the said evidence if it is looked into with the evidence of PW.1, 6 and 7, nowhere they have stated that the alleged incident has taken place due to rash and negligent act of the driver.
17. If the evidence of PW.5 is taken into consideration the said evidence does not repose any confidence. She has stated that at the place of accident there was darkness and there was a curve, then under such circumstances it cannot be held that due to the darkness the alleged incident has taken place.
Admittedly, they were travelling in the Maruthi Car which is having a capacity of five persons but actually seven persons were travelling including the children and even the place where the alleged accident has taken place it was a U-Turn prior to the bus stop and when there was a curve then under such circumstances, the question of the accused driving the same in a rashly and negligently does not arise at all. Even PW.1 himself has stated that the bus was coming on the left side of the road at the time of the alleged accident. In that light if evidence of PW.5 is appreciated it does not inspire the “Court” to hold that she was awoken and has seen the accident.
18. Taking into consideration the entire material placed on record, it does not reposed the confidence of the Court that she has deposed that the alleged incident has taken place due to rash and negligent act of the accused.
19. Taking into consideration of the above said fact and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the lower appellate Court after considering the material placed on record has come to a right conclusion and rightly acquitted the accused.
20. There are no good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate Court. In that light the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
I.A No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.
SD/- JUDGE HB/-