IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.350/2019 BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY GONIBEEDU POLICE, REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP.) AND:
RAVI B.D.
S/O DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BADGE NO.454 DRIVER OF KSRTC MUDIGERE DEPOT, RESIDING AT SIRIDHANAHALLI, MALLI PATTANA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT – ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 4.9.2018, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUDIGERE IN C.C.NO.701/2014, ACQUITING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279,337,338 AND 304A OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.09.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere in C.C.No.701/2014. Where under the accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant - State. The learned counsel for the respondent-accused remained absent.
3. Though this case is listed for hearing on Interlocutory Application, the same is taken up for final disposal with consent.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 14.07.2013 at about 2.00 PM, accused being driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-18/F-0619 driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the on coming another KSRTC Bus. Due to the said impact C.W. 3 to 22 who were travelling in the bus sustained simple and grievous injuries and the mother of the complainant who has sustained grievous injuries succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.80/2013. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused.
5. The Magistrate took the cognizance and secured the presence of the accused and after following the procedure under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The plea of the accused was recorded and accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried and as such, trial was fixed.
6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses as PWs.1 to 22 and got marked 58 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.58. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded by placing incriminating material against him. He denied the same and did not lead any defense evidence.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is no incriminating material or circumstance against the accused and by its judgment and order acquitted the accused. Challenging the legality and correctness, the State is before this Court.
8. Learned Government Pleader contends that the judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable in law and facts. The trial Court has erred in acquitting the Accused. It is his further submission that P.Ws.11, 14 and 17 who were the passengers in the bus, in their evidence categorically supported the case of the prosecution. Even though there is sufficient material to convict the accused to the alleged crime, erroneously the Trial Court has acquitted the accused. All the witnesses have clearly and categorically deposed that the accused has driven the said bus in a negligent manner and the accused has not made out specific case and the said bus has colluded with another KSRTC bus, that itself shows that driver of the bus was negligent. These aspects has been overlooked by the Trial Court. It is his further submission that judgment of the Trial court is perverse and illegal, same is liable to be set aside, the appeal may be allowed and accused may be convicted.
9. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the averments made by the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records including the evidence of all the witnesses and other materials made available by him.
10. On close reading of the said records, prosecution in order to prove the case got examined 22 witnesses. PW.1 is the complainant, P.Ws.2 to 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 who are injured witnesses they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been turned as hostile. P.W.2, the injured witnesses, P.Ws. 14 and 17 are the passengers who were traveling in the said bus which met with an accident. On close reading of the evidence of these witnesses, some witnesses have stated that bus came with a great speed and dashed to on coming bus negligently and some witnesses have not even spoken with regard to rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus, some of the witnesses have not identified the driver of the bus. Even the evidence clearly goes to show that the bus in which they were traveling came with great speed and it is deposed that because of rash and negligent act of driver of on coming bus accident has taken place. When such inconsistent evidence has been produced by the prosecution, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
11. After going through the judgment of the trial Court and after considering the evidence of all the witnesses, it is clear that the trial Court has come to the right conclusion and has rightly acquitted the accused of the offence. There is no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. In that light, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
I.A.No.1/2019 is also disposed of as it does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE HR